Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock.

The Clerk at the Table (Sir T. Lonsdale Webster) informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker from this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Mr. JAMES HOPE, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Staffordshire Potteries Water Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Dumfries and Maxwelltown Waterworks Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Hampshire Rivers Fisheries Provisional Order Bill,

Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Guildford Extension) Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 9) Bill (by Order),

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Monday next.

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scot-
land) Act, 1899, relating to Greenock Port and Harbours," presented by Mr. MUNRO; read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Monday, 10th July, and to be printed. [Bill 174.]

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir J. REMNANT—
4. To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state how many aliens resident in this country are given special police protection?

Sir J. REMNANT: May I ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Office if he will supply an answer to my question, of which notice has been given?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I am sorry that I have not the answer to-day.

Sir J. REMNANT: There is no representative of the Postmaster-General present to reply to my further question which I have put—
2. Whether his attention has been called to the case of certain assistant inspectors of traffic in the secretary's office of the Post Office, formerly employed as assistant superintendents of traffic in the London Telephone Service, who have been graded junior to officers from the provinces appointed at about the same time; whether he is aware that they have been placed at this disadvantage solely on account of the two years' delay in revising the scale of pay of the London class; and what steps he proposes to take to deal with their cases?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that there is no obligation on any Minister to be present on Friday.

Sir J. REMNANT: As a matter of courtesy, and in accordance with the custom of this House, when a question is put down, and having regard to the fact that we have to wait a week, ought not the Minister to be present to give an answer?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. On the contrary, it has been the practice ever since I was a Member of this House that there is no kind of obligation on any Minister to be present on Friday.

Sir J. REMNANT: I will not attempt to argue your decision, but having regard to the numerous questions this Session, I thought that when a question was put down on Friday, it would be answered. It is the last thing that I should think of doing to put down any questions which would inconvenience Ministers, but if they are not answered on Friday, can they go over until Monday?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member does not put it down for Monday he will receive a written answer in due course.

Sir J. REMNANT: Can I put it down for Monday when the question has been called, and I have put it?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, I am afraid not.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

ATTACKS ON INSURGENTS, DUBLIN.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give us any information as to the position of affairs in Dublin?

Colonel LESLIE WILSON (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I did not know that my right hon. Friend was going to ask any question on this subject. I have received no information from the Colonial Office or the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I under stand that there is no further information other than that which has already appeared in the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Summer Time Bill [Lords]): Vice-Admiral Sir Reginald Hall.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — GAMING BILL [Lords].

Order read for Consideration of Lords Reason for disagreeing to the Commons Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Reason be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Sir E. Pollock.]

Lords Reason considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Repeal of 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 41, s. 2.)

Section two of the Gaming Act, 1835 (which makes money paid to the indorsee, holder, or assignee of securities given for consideration arising out of certain gaming transactions recoverable from the person to whom the securities were originally given), is hereby repealed. No trustee, executor, or other person acting in a representative or fiduciary capacity shall be under any obligation to make or enforce any claim under the said Section in respect of any transaction completed before the passing of this Act, or be liable for any breach of duty by reason of any failure to do so. No action for the recovery of money under the said Section shall be entertained in any Court.

Commons Amendment:

Leave out the words
No trustee, executor, or other person acting in a representative or fiduciary capacity shall be under any obligation to make or enforce any claim under the said Section in respect of any transaction completed before the passing of this Act, or be liable for any breach of duty by reason of any failure to do so.

Lords Reason for disagreeing to the Commons Amendment:

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 1, line 11, for the following Reason:

Because the words proposed to be left out by the Commons are required for the protection of trustees and others in, a like position.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Pollock): I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
I will explain briefly the Amendment which the House of Commons made and which has been re-inserted by the House of Lords. When the Bill was originally drafted and brought before another
place last Session, it was pointed out that as it stood then the Bill would have a retrospective effect. We all agree that retrospective legislation is most difficult and, perhaps on many grounds, unwise. Therefore, the Bill was brought in in a form not to have a retrospective effect. At the same time, it was pointed out that difficulty might arise if the Bill was not to have a retrospective effect, because during the interval rights and duties might accrue which would not be covered by a Bill without retrospective effect. Hence, when the Bill was introduced in another place this Session, it was drafted in the form in which it has now been restored by the House of Lords. The passage which was deleted in Committee of this House has now been restored. The question is whether we should insist upon our Amendment, deleting the words
No trustee, executor, or other person acting in a representative or fiduciary capacity shall be under any obligation to make or enforce any claim under the said Section in respect of any transaction completed before the passing of this Act, or be liable for any breach of duty by reason of any failure to do so,
or whether we should not insist upon the Amendment we made. The lines omitted in this House, which have been restored in the House of Lords, are for the purpose of safeguarding the position of trustees, executors, and others in a fiduciary capacity. The case of Stutter v. Briggs was decided by the House of Lords, judgment being given on 25th October last year. This Bill, if it receives the Royal Assent, will receive the Royal Assent some time during this Session, and, therefore, there is an interval between the time when the law was laid down by the House of Lords in October last, and the time when this Bill comes into force, during which it was possible for actions to be brought to recover moneys paid in respect of gaming transactions. The purpose of this Bill is to put the law in the form in which most people believe it stood before that decision was given by the House of Lords. The Bill, as passed by this House, says that no action for the recovery of money under Section 2 of the Act of 1835 shall be entertained in any Court. Having confirmed that position, we want to make it effective for the purpose, but it has to be rememb red that it is always the duty of
trustees in bankruptcy, or persons acting in a fiduciary position as executors, to do their best for the estate which is entrusted to their care, and during the period between October and the time when this Bill shall receive the Royal Assent, it may be that there was a duty on the part of those who were acting in a representative capacity as trustees in bankruptcy and the like to recover moneys due to the estate in this way. In the early part of the year proceedings were taken by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover moneys paid under a bet. The action failed before the Judge of First Instance, who let fall some observations that such proceedings ought not to be taken. But this view was not accepted by the Court of Appeal, and the words which have been restored in the House of Lords are for the purpose of making plain that there shall be no liability resting upon a trustee or other persons in a fiduciary capacity to take proceedings, and that they shall not be liable for the fact that they have not taken proceedings, during the interval between October and the passing of this Bill. The words which the Lords have re-inserted are
No trustee, executor or other person acting in a representative or fiduciary capacity shall be under any obligation to make or enforce any claim under the said Section in respect of any transaction completed before the passing of this Act or he liable for any breach of duty by reason of any failure to do so.
When the Bill was before the Committee of this House it was conceived—and it may be arguable—that the liability of trustees and persons acting in a fiduciary capacity was sufficiently safeguarded by the words
No action for the recovery of money under this Section shall be entertained in any Court.
I can understand that that view might be held. On the other hand, it is better to make it clear what we mean—to relieve trustees and other persons in a fiduciary capacity from liability which ought not to rest upon them. It may be that that liability can be enforced, not merely by an action for the recovery of money under the said Section, but by other means. Therefore, some lawyers think—and I am one of them—that the words which I have just quoted are not sufficient to render trustees immune from the duty which lies upon them between October and the pass-
ing of this Bill. The House of Lords have restored these words to make plain what I think is the general intention both of this House and of the other place. It seems to me that those words are useful, and by not insisting upon our Amendment all that is done is that we prevent an attempt being made to impose an unpleasant liability on certain persons in a fiduciary capacity during the interval to which I have referred. Trustees, whether trustees in bankruptcy or other trustees, have a difficult task. It would, perhaps, be adding to their burden and responsibility if we left them under a duty to take proceedings which were characterised by one Judge as proceedings which ought not to be taken. I agree that the other view might be held; but I think it better to make plain and not to run the risk of any proceedings being taken against persons in a fiduciary capacity to render them responsible during the interval for that for which they would not be responsible after the passage of this Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for the very clear statement he has made regarding the object of the Bill and the Amendment. I agree with him that trustees have in many cases an extremely arduous and an unpleasant duty to perform. Therefore I should certainly vote for any method by which we could relieve trustees from the disagreeable task which they have voluntarily undertaken, if by doing so we could avoid inflicting an injury upon the beneficiary or the persons concerned in any trust. The Attorney-General says that the Bill as originally introduced was retrospective, and he affirmed the doctrine, which I am glad to see affirmed by the senior legal representative of the Government, that all retrospective legislation was bad. He will have an opportunity of pressing those views upon the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government who might possibly be induced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in legislation contrary to the views which have just been expressed by so great an authority as the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I humbly agree. But I am not certain that this Bill is not retrospective. I am inclined to think that it is, because the words at the end
No action for the recovery of any money under this Section shall be entertained in any Court
seem to me to convey the possibility of actions which have been commenced being stopped.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The words which the right hon. Baronet has quoted are no part of the subject of difference between the two Houses. They have been agreed to between the two Houses. The only subject is that contained in the words which have been left out in another place.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am aware of that, but I was only answering the point made by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General specially alluded to these words, and it was only in that respect that I was alluding to the matter. The words which were left out in the Standing Committee upstairs are the words which the House of Lords propose to re-insert. I was not a Member of the Standing Committee, but I have taken some trouble to ascertain what actually took place upon this question. Unless I have been misinformed, these words were left out on a Motion made by a Member of the Government, and the reason given by the Member of the Government was that the words were superfluous because they were protected by the words which the Attorney-General had read,
No action for the recovery of money under the said Section shall be entertained in any Court.
The Committee accepted the view of the Government that the words were unnecessary and they were left out. The Attorney-General has admitted to-day that other views might be entertained. He was under the impression that the words were necessary and could he reinserted in the Bill without doing any harm to it.

Sir E. POLLOCK: Two opinions may be held. I would be far from quarrelling with those who take the view to which the right hon. Baronet has referred. It is a matter of doubt. My own view is that it is better to make it quite plain and certain that you relieve the trustees.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged for that interruption. There are two points for us to consider, and I will deal with the minor one first. I have always been told in this House, not only by Mem-
bens of all Governments, but by every Law Officer during the last 30 years, that if it was unnecessary to put words into a Bill, if the object of the Bill could be achieved without those words, it was a mistake to put superfluous words in. The Standing Committee was told that these words were superfluous and that it was unnecessary to put them in. While I am most anxious that this Bill should become law, yet I do not want to put in words which may possibly lead to litigation. The second point is more important, be cause it shows what may arise when Bills of all descriptions, which involve any legal technicality, are taken before a Standing Committee without the presence of any Law Officer. As I am informed there was no Law Officer present on the Committee when these words were left out, except the Lord Advocate, who expressly stated that he was not an authority upon the law in England. If the Standing Committee had had the advantage of the presence of the Attorney-General on that occasion, a good deal of this complication would not have arisen. The Government ought to remember that it is very much better for their own interests that there should be a Law Officer present who will say what is right and what is wrong, and so avoid the extraordinary position of one Member of the Government in Standing Committee saying that words are unnecessary, and then another Member of the Government at a later stage saying that the words are necessary and must be put in. For a business Government, who desire expedition in the conduct of this House, it would be far better to take a little more trouble in the initial stages of a Bill and so avoid the necessity of the Attorney-General having to come down and say that another Member of the Government has committed an error of judgment. Let me point out to the Labour party the great usefulness of the House of Lords. If the House of Lords had not insisted on this Amendment, we might have allowed the Bill to become an Act which, according to the Attorney-General, might inflict undue hardship and unnecessary cost upon trustees. Thank God for the House of Lords!

Question, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment, to which the Lords have disagreed," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INFANTICIDE BILL.

(Changed from CHILD MURDER (TRIAL) BILL.)

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Colonel Wedgwood.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — TITLE.

"An Act to provide that a woman charged with the murder of her infant child may, under certain conditions, be convicted of manslaughter."

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words
charged with the murder of her infant

and insert
who wilfully causes the death of her newly-born.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I should like to say we have gone very carefully through these Amendments and they seem to make the object we had in view more certain and the Measure more watertight. Without going into them in any detail, I shall ask the House to agree with these Amendments and to accept the Bill as amended. Although it has been very largely changed in wording, it exactly carries out the purpose which the Labour party had in introducing it.

Sir F. BANBURY: Here again we have a legal question and I should prefer to have the presence of the Law Officers. I think we should be told what is the effect of this first Amendment.

Sir J. BAIRD: The Attorney-General has gone out to get a copy of the Bill. He will be back directly, and will be able to answer every conceivable question which the ingenuity of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) can suggest. I do not know if the right hon. Baronet heard the terms of the Amendment and is aware of the original Title of the Bill, but it seems to me the meaning is perfectly clear. To my limited intelligence, the words of the Amendment are so clear that one would find difficulty in
making its meaning any clearer. There is nothing I should dislike more than that my right hon. Friend should regard me as guilty of any discourtesy, but I am bound to admit that I cannot find words to explain more clearly the effect of the Amendment than the words actually employed here.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the word "manslaughter" ["convicted of manslaughter"], and insert "infanticide."

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Conviction for manslaughter in certain cases.)

Where a woman is charged with the murder of her infant child, and upon the trial evidence is given that at the time the offence was committed the woman had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child, the jury may convict her of manslaughter instead of murder.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words
is charged with the murder of her infant child, and upon the trial evidence is given that at the time the offence was committed the woman had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to the child, the jury may convict her of manslaughter instead of murder.

and insert
by any wilful act or omission causes the death of her newly-born child, but at the time of the act or omission she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed, she shall, notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for this Act the offence would hale amounted to murder, be guilty of felony, to wit of infanticide and may for such offence be dealt with and punished as if she had been guilty of the offence of manslaughter of such child.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment"— [Colonel Wedgwood.]

Sir F. BANBURY: This is a rather long Amendment. I gather it applies to cases where a woman, through pain or some other cause connected with the birth of a child, is not conscious of what she is doing, and that the intention is that an offence committed in such circumstances, shall not be manslaughter nor murder, but some other undefined offence. It will be rather difficult to ascertain the woman's state of mind, and this is really
going back to the True case. We shall have two doctors saying on the one hand that the woman was not in a state of mind to know what she was doing, and two doctors, on the other hand, saying absolutely the reverse.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The point of the Amendment is that a woman in such circumstances is to be adjudged guilty of manslaughter and not of murder.

Sir F. BANBURY: That does not really touch the point that there might be considerable difference of opinion as to the state of the woman's mind. However, if the object is to substitute the word "manslaughter" for "murder," I do not object.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of the Clause insert new Sub-sections—
(2) Where upon the trial of a woman for the murder of her newly-born child, the jury are of opinion that she by any wilful act or omission caused its death, but that at the time of the act or omission she had not fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to such child, and that by reason thereof the balance of her mind was then disturbed, the jury may notwithstanding that the circumstances were such that but for the provisions of this Act they might have returned a verdict of murder return in lieu thereof a verdict of infanticide.
(3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of the jury upon an indictment for the murder of a newly-born child to return a verdict of manslaughter, or a verdict of guilty hut insane, or a verdict of concealment of birth, in pursuance of Section sixty of the Offences against the Person Act. 1861.
(4) The said Section sixty shall apply in the case of the acquittal of a woman upon indictment for infanticide as it applies upon the acquittal of a woman for murder and upon the trial of any person over the age of sixteen for infanticide it shall he lawful for the jury if they are satisfied that the accused is guilty of an offence under Section twelve of the Children's Act, 1908 to find the accused guilty of such an offence, and m that ease that Section shall apply accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." —[Colonel Wedgwood.

Sir F. BANBURY: We ought to know the meaning of the new Sub-sections.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They are on the Paper.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill should tell us what they mean.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: This Bill was originally a one Clause Bill, drafted without the legal mind being applied to it. When it went through Committee it was modified in accordance with the common-sense views of the Home Office. When it got to the House of Lords it was taken in charge by legal experts, and a short Clause of five lines was expanded into one consisting of four Sub-sections, each containing about 12 lines, but expressing exactly the same idea as that which the Home Office accepted in Committee. I do not think it necessary to go through all this legal verbiage. I assure the right hon. Baronet we shall have plenty of opportunity for discussion on the next two Orders—discussion which will be of more interest to the general public than trying to deliberate the difference between the legal words indicating the object of this Bill and the original layman's words in which it was framed. I cannot explain the difference. I do not think anybody except a lawyer could do so, and I do not think it would he of interest to the House to discuss these subtle differences when we might be dealing with some really interesting question such as the rating of machinery or the prevention of railway fires.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not quite follow that line of argument. I am not concerned with what we may discuss on some other Measure. I want to know what we are doing now. A great deal of legislation is passed simply because hon. Members—and I do not blame them, because they have so many things to attend to—do not in the least know what they are doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I am not sure that I am any the wiser after the explanation which has been given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He himself says he does not know what this means, and I am sure not a single Member present knows what it means. Surely the first thing necessary, in order that we should carry out the duties imposed on us, is that we should know what we are doing. The speech of the hon. and gallant Member emphasises what I said on another Amendment, for according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman what has
taken place is this. Common sense, represented by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Home Office, brought in a Bill, and in this House common sense alone acted, but when the Bill got to another place, acuter minds dealing with the legal question entirely altered the common sense of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because they put into four Clauses what he had endeavoured to put into one. The answer to that is, that in all probability his one Clause would not have been interpreted in a court of law except in various different ways, and the result would have been that there would have been a large amount of money spent in fees for counsel learned in the law, whereas the legal authorities in another place, being anxious to save money and to prevent His Majesty's subjects being put to unnecessary expense, put the Bill into such a form that it would be understood when it came, if it should ever come, before a court of law. I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for his speech, but I must still ask him very shortly to explain the actual Amendments with which he is going to move to agree. The position of a leader of a party entails responsibility, and therefore I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accept the responsibility which has been thrust upon him.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Short title and extent.)

(1) This Act may be cited as the Child Murder (Trial) Act, 1922.
(2) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland.

Lords Amendment.

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "Child Murder (Trial)," and insert instead thereof the word "Infanticide."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is merely to change the Title of the Bill. One Title is as good as another, as long as we get the result.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am quite willing to accept this.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd June], "That the Bill be now read the Third time. "— [Sir H. Nield.]

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir F. BANBURY: When the Third Reading of this Bill was taken this day week, by the Rules of the House I was interrupted in the few remarks which I had intended to make on that occasion. I should like now to make it quite clear that I have no objection whatever to the principle of superannuation. I think it is an extremely good principle, provided it is carried out in a moderate and sensible manner, but, on the other hand, one cannot conceal from oneself that many of the superannuation funds which are in existence at the present moment are more or less in a bankrupt condition. I do not say that without having some knowledge of the matter, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) rather twitted me last Friday with not having any special knowledge of this particular matter.

Sir H. NIELD: I withdraw that unreservedly.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged I have for many years been chairman of a superannuation fund, and therefore I have some knowledge of how that fund works. Of course, in all these cases there is—and I presume there has been in this case—a consultation with an actuary as to the effect of the scheme, and as far as I know in nearly every case at the commencement of the fund the actuary makes a calculation and comes to a conclusion which leads him to be able to say that, provided the provisions of the scheme are carefully carried out, that fund will be solvent. But circumstances have arisen in every case that I know of which have shown that the calculations of the actuary were unfounded and have bad to be entirely recast. When the actuary is confronted with that, he says that circumstances have arisen which he did not foresee and that consequently he is in no way to blame, and I think he is right. That state of affairs has arisen, not in one or two isolated cases, but probably in a great number of large schemes, where
every precaution and every care has been taken to see that the fund not only was started in a manner which should ensure its solvency, but was managed in as good and as capable a way as it was possible to secure in this human world. Yet the result has invariably been that the whole basis of the scheme has had to he altered, or that the employers have had, out of their own pockets or out of the pockets of their shareholders, to find large sums of money in addition to the sums which they had originally agreed to find. In one or two cases the company has taken over the whole liability of the solvency of the fund, and though that was very nice for the servants and officials, I am not at all sure it was a wise proceeding for the shareholders. That brings me to the question of this particular scheme.
At the commencement of my remarks, I said I had no objection to superannuation schemes as such, provided they were properly managed, but it must be remembered that superannuation schemes for local authorities are met with this difficulty. The salaries of the officials and servants of a local authority which has not initiated under a special Act a scheme of its own are based upon the principle that there is no superannuation, and consequently what is going to be done is this, that the superannuation will he granted upon a salary which was given when it was supposed that the recipient of that salary would not be entitled to a pension. That must necessarily entail a very considerable burden on the ratepayers, and while I do not in any way wish to cause hardship to the officials and servants of local authorities, one must not forget that the person who is suffering from the greatest hardship at the present moment is the ratepayer. The ratepayer has had his burdens enormously increased. I think I might say, without exaggeration, that in many cases they have been doubled and trebled during the last seven or eight years, and now it cannot be denied that you are going to put a further burden on the ratepayer.
The pensions which have been granted to civil servants have always been looked upon as part of deferred pay; that is to say, if they had not had the pension, their salaries would have been larger. In this case the reverse is going to take place,
because, as I have already said, the servants of local authorities were appointed and paid upon the supposition that they were not going to receive a pension, and, consequently, they had a larger salary than they would have had if they had thought or known that they were going to receive a pension. Therefore, to make this Bill work fairly, not only to the officials but to the rate[...]ayers, the salaries to begin with in the case of every authority adopting this scheme should be reduced to a point at which they would have been if, from the beginning, a superannuation scheme had been in existence. We know very well that that will not be done. The officials, of course, would object to their salaries being reduced, and the local authorities, probably, would not like to take an unpopular course. The pensions, therefore, will be given upon salaries which never ought to have carried pensions.
Coming to the Bill itself, and to the alterations made, I have only been able to get a copy of the Bill as it came down from the Standing Committee. I have not been able to get a copy of the Bill as it is now, after having been altered by this House; but I have a recollection of the more important Amendments, or rather I should say, perhaps, of the Amendments with which I disagree, and which, I think, were put in by mistake. Clause 2 of the Bill, as it came to this House last week, said:
This Act shall not apply to a local authority unless and until—
(a) it shall have been adopted by such local authority by a resolution passed by a. majority of the members of such local authority, at a meeting called for the purpose, of which a month's previous notice shall he given to each member of such local authority, and such notice shall be accompanied with a copy of this Act, together with an estimate certified by an actuary of the cost to the local authority of adopting this Act; and such resolution shall also have been confirmed by such local authority at their immediately succeeding regular meeting held not less than one month after the passing of such resolution.
12 N.
Instead of a resolution having to be passed by a majority of the members of such local authority, it was altered, so far as my recollection goes, to a majority of two-thirds of those present, which, of course, is a. very different Thing. I think the Labour party have
always objected to provisions necessitating a majority of two-thirds of those present.

Sir EDMUND BARTLEY-DENNISS: They object to a majority of Members still more.

Sir F. BANBURY: Perhaps they do. I am very much afraid they always object to anybody having a control over his purse, and that they are always anxious to spend as much money as possible, especially if it belong to anybody else. That was the alteration made, and I think it was a very bad one, because it is a matter of common knowledge that the ratepayer is a very lethargic person, and, although when he finds that his demand note is £20 instead of £15, he is very angry, in many cases he will not take the trouble to attend meetings, or find out what is going on. In that matter he is not altogether to be blamed, because he has a good deal to do, and it is not always possible for him to attend meetings of the local authority. Of course, it may be said that if you become a member of a local authority, it is your duty to attend every meeting. It is equally the duty of every Member of this House to attend every Sitting of this House, and to know what is going on, but, as a matter of fact, neither of those two things occurs, and, certainly, during this Parliament, we rarely have 300 Members, or less than half, present, and of those 300 very few know what is going on.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: How does the right hon. Gentleman connect his remarks with the Bill under discussion?

Sir F. BANBURY: I certainly think I can show it. I pointed out that this alteration in the Bill would be bad for the ratepayers, because they could not depend upon a regular attendance of their members, and, therefore, a two-thirds majority of the members present might be two-thirds of a very small number, and I illustrated that by mentioning a very much superior body, with much more important duties imposed upon it, where it was difficult to get anything like a larger number of the members to attend. I merely used it by way of illustration. I believe there were some Amendments to that particular Clause, but I forget them at the moment.
Then we come to the question as to how these pensions are to be calculated. They are going to be calculated not, I think, on the salary which the officer or the civil servant receives, but upon his bonus, and the words are these:
Provided that any part of a superannuation allowance which is calculated by reference to a war bonus or other similar allowance shall be calculated and liable to variation in accordance with the Rules for the time being In force with respect to superannuation allowances of members of His Majesty's Civil Service.
I do not know what the Regulations are in respect to bonus allowances for members of His Majesty's Civil Service, but I do know this, that in all well-conducted superannuation schemes the bonus is not included. The word "bonus" means something which is given as an exceptional gift under exceptional circumstances. It is not a salary at all. I have tried to study this carefully, and my belief is that bonus cannot be included in the salary. I do not think you can say, because His Majesty's civil servants succeeded in getting their bonuses included in their salary, that that is an example to be followed. I do not for a moment enlarge, and must not, upon the methods which have been carried out by the civil servants in regard to bonuses on their salaries beyond saying it is a matter of common knowledge that during the past three or four years the way in which salaries have been increased of civil servants is one which has not been followed by any other body of persons in this country.

Sir H. NIELD: On a point of explanation, and in order to shorten the observations of the right hon. Baronet, may I point out that in this very Clause have been introduced words intended to bring about that on a reduction in the cost of living the bonus will fall too, and so the ratepayers pay less towards the cost of superannuation.

Sir F. BANBURY: I know, but that is not my point. My point is that bonus should not be included at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely missed my point. My point was not that the bonus should rise or fall with the cost of living. I am perfectly well aware that that is so. My point was that it ought not be included at all. The word "bonus" does not mean the ordinary salary, but
something which is given as an exceptional gift. Turn now to Clause 19. Here I see Parliamentary provision is made for what I spoke about at the beginning, and relates to a contingency that will probably occur, namely, a deficiency account—in other words, the thing becoming insolvent. The Clause says:
Where on any such valuation the actuary certifies that a deficiency or a disposable surplus is disclosed the local authority"—
I want to call the attention of the House to these words—
shall submit to the Minister a scheme for making good the deficiency by means of payments by the local authority into the superannuation fund, or by means of an increase in the contributions as provided by this Act of the local authority.
That means if a deficiency occurs the local authority, that is the ratepayers, shall make up the deficiency. I am quite well aware that there are other provisions which I propose to read to the House, but this particular Clause says that the local authority "shall" not "may," in the event of the fund being deficient, make up that deficiency by means of payments into the superannuation fund or by means of an increase in the contributions of the local authority. Then the Clause goes on:
(3) Where on any such valuation the actuary certifies that in order to maintain an equality of value as respects persons becoming contributors after the date of the scheme between the amounts to be contributed by or in respect of such persons, and the amounts of benefit to which such persons will become entitled, it is expedient to increase or decrease the contribution as provided by this Act in respect of such persons, provision 'may' be made.…
Here, in relation to officials, it says "may"; it does not say "shall." The effect of these two Sub-sections is that where there is a deficiency the local authorities "shall" make up the, deficiency out of their funds, or the ratepayers' funds, or they "may" not "shall" ask the persons who are going to benefit by the scheme to increase their contribution in equal amount. Why is it "shall" in one case and "may" in another? It is natural that the officials of a local authority should say at once: "Oh, but you have power, in fact you are ordered, to make up this deficiency out of the funds of the ratepayers. On the other hand it is only a permissive power that is given to ask us to contri-
bute. We are sure you are not going to ask us. It would be very hard upon us because the cost of living has gone down a little, and we really cannot agree that it is fair that we should contribute." The result probably will be that again the ratepayers will have to contribute when they certainly ought not to do so, seeing they already are groaning under grievous burdens.
The only other thing to which I wish to call the attention of the House is that somewhere or other—I do not know quite exactly—in the Bill there is an Amendment, put in last Friday, which provided that part-time officials might have a pension. At that time we had the, privilege of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) who was himself a distinguished civil servant. The Bill said that certain things had to be done within the rules of the Civil Service with regard to bonus. I am sorry my right hon. Friend is not here now, but he was last Friday and was impelled to get up and say that it was an unheard of thing in the Civil Service that a part-time servant should receive a pension. Take the case of a doctor, he may be calling at a workhouse during the year, hut for the most of the day engaged in his private practice. Why on earth should he receive a pension at the expense of the ratepayers? It is an entirely novel procedure. I do not believe that there is another scheme in this country which provides that part-time officials shall receive pensions. I believe that this Bill has not yet been to the House of Lords, and I only hope that in another place they will ensure that the particular portion of the Bill which gives a pension to a part-time official will be amended by being struck out.

Mr. MYERS: I am particularly anxious that the House should get on with the discussion of the Railway Fires Bill, but I do ask hon. Members to agree to the Third Reading of this Measure. Its general provisions meet with the approval and support of all those national associations which are entitled to speak on behalf of local government in this country, and it meets with the approval of the National Association of Local Government Officers. In addition the Bill has received the support of the
Ministry of Health and from that point of view can be said to be an agreed Measure. I am sure that this Measure will be welcomed by the various local authorities of the country.
There are a few general considerations which will lead them in that direction. The provisions of the Measure will give greater security to local officials on retirement in regard to the advantages which their salaries bring, and by retiring at a reasonable age they will open further avenues of public employment for younger men, and thus maintain the virility of our local government. This Measure will also remove from the activities of local authorities a very unpleasant and undesirable proceeding which has operated in days gone by. Many local authorities in the past have had to resort to the doubtful expediency of giving a pension to an old official and calling it something else, and there are many examples of old public servants who have been put on the retired list and then have been given a sum which has been called salary for consultative purposes in order that they may be called in for consultation when required. I think that is an undesirable proceeding, especially after these men have lost touch with local administration in a particular area. From these two points of view I am sure that the provisions of this Bill will be acceptable to the local authorities in the country. I take it that the wider aspect of public advantage is all on the side of the acceptance of the provisions contained within the four corners of this Measure, and for these reasons I hope the House will give it the Third Reading.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I also am very anxious to see this Bill passed into law with the least possible delay. As I have had no previous opportunity of speaking during the early stages of this Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say one or two words at this point. I have had representations from those living in my constituency, both from those who represent the employés and the employers, asking that this Bill should receive the sanction of Parliament at the earliest possible date. On the whole I desire to give it a very cordial support.
I do, however, feel that there is very great substance in the objections which have been raised to certain parts of the Bill by the right hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), particularly in regard to reckoning superannuation allowance upon bonuses. Like my right hon. Friend, I have been for several months past engaged in examining very closely the question of salaries, bonuses, and pensions to members of the. Civil Service, and I think I speak for the great majority of the Committee on which I am serving when I say that the whole system of pensions, as reckoned on bonuses for members of the Civil Service, will not meet with their approbation. It is a wrong principle. A bonus is not part of the salary, and, like my right hon. Friend, I share the hope that when this Bill passes to another place, if it is within their competence to do so, they will amend the Clause to which I desire to draw the attention of the House. I wish to call attention to paragraph (c), Clause 7, which reads:
Provided that any part of a superannuation allowance which is calculated by reference to a war bonus or other similar allowance shall be calculated and liable to variation in accordance with the rules for the time being in force in respect to superannuation allowances of members of His Majesty's Civil Service.
That makes it all the more incumbent upon those Members of this House who wish to have regard to public economy, that the rule in force with regard to the war bonus of members of His Majesty's Civil Service should be as speedily as possible amended. There is another point which was very properly raised by my right hon. Friend, namely, the question of superannuation allowances to part-time officials. I listened to what my right hon. Friend said with his usual force on that subject, and I find myself in entire agreement with the sentiments which he expressed. Having said that, I wish to express in two or three words my cordial assent to the Bill which the House is now asked to read the Third time, I do so for three reasons. In the first place, I am very glad that this legislation is to be of a permissive character. I was not able to be present during the Debate raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), but I have read his remarks on this question as well as those of other Members of the House, and they gave reasons which appear to me to be overwhelming in favour of this Bill.
I believe it to be a very sound principle in regard to Measures of this kind relating to public authorities, that they should be of a permissive character, and not obligatory. It is that portion of the scheme which commends it to me. I would also like to say that, although the legislation is permissive in character, I hope and believe it will be adopted by a very large number of the local authorities concerned. Speaking for my own main local authority, I know that they are anxious to see this Bill passed into law.
The second feature of the Bill which commends itself to me is the fact that the scheme is to be upon a contributory basis. There again I believe my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir H. Nield) is proceeding as he did in the case of the Middlesex Bill, on the basis of a contributory scheme. Here is a scheme which is coming into operation long after the establishment of the service, and in which it seems to me the principle of contribution is sound and ought to be adopted and maintained. Finally, I would desire to support this Bill because it removes anomalies in regard to the public service which are absolutely indefensible.
You have in a municipality like that which I represent certain public officers who are pensionable and certain other officers doing precisely parallel work who are not pensionable. If it were merely for the purpose of removing anomalies which are creating, I will not say unrest, but a great deal of dissatisfaction among the servants of our municipalities and local authorities, I should give my hearty support to this Bill. It is exceedingly important—on this point, I speak with some personal knowledge—for a local authority, I will not say to get rid of public servants who may have done admirable service in their time, and who have reached a stage at which their service is no longer efficient, but to be able to pension them instead of being obliged to retain them in the service simply because they are not in a position to place them on superannuation. If the Bill contained no other provision, I should think on that account alone it would be well worth the attention and acceptance of this House. Therefore, I give it my cordial support on Third Reading.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: While I cannot think that the House will be beguiled by the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), he did make certain attacks on local authorities which call for a word or two in reply. He suggested that this House should constitute itself the defender of overburdened ratepayers owing to the lethargy of the local authorities. The industry of members of local authorities compares very favourably with the industry of Members of this House. The right hon. Gentleman himself went on to say that, whereas we had a membership of over 600, there were seldom 300 Members present. If he had had experience of municipalities and local government, he would know that the proportion who attend is infinitely greater than the proportion of Members who attend this House. Therefore, it is not necessary that the local authorities, or even individual ratepayers, should look to the right hon. Baronet to champion their interest. The interest taken in local elections compares more than favourably in many districts with the interest taken in Parliamentary elections, and there is much more apathy here than in local affairs. Therefore, this Bill, which is of a permissive character, may well be left in the hands of those who are vigilant in looking after the interests of the ratepayers, especially as it does not impose any charge on the Exchequer, but is mainly on a contributory baths, though possibly a slight charge may fall on the rates. It has the support of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who represent officially the views of the local authorities, and I have no doubt that the House this afternoon will, practically unanimously, give a Third Reading to a Bill which is to encourage thrift. Surely, the right hon. Baronet should support a Bill which is to encourage economy. It will make for more efficient administration in local affairs, owing to local authorities being able to pension officers who have overrun their time, but who now, owing to sympathetic consideration, are kept on because the authorities do not wish to throw them on the scrap heap. I think the right hon. Baronet should support a Bill which makes for thrift and economy and does not impose a charge on the Exchequer.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say that I was not going to support the Bill. I was at considerable pains to show that, in my opinion, something of this sort is necessary, but I thought it my duty to point out the weak spots of the Bill.

Mr. THOMSON: I am sorry if I have misrepresented the right hon. Baronet. I am glad to hear that he is on the side of those who are supporting this Measure in the interests of the local authorities.

Sir H. NIELD: rose

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member addressed the House last Friday.

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I reserved myself to the end in order, in the fewest possible words—I do not desire to delay anything—to express my thanks to the House for the very cordial way in which they have accepted the Bill. In all its stages it has met with almost universal approval, and, from the observations of the right hon. Baronet, I am not sure that it does not have his approbation after all. At any rate, he has had the opportunity of exhibiting that wonderful scientific skill which can be operated in this House most effectively. I wish also to say how much I appreciated the observations of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Marriott), who has carefully gone through the Measure. I can assure him that the local authorities can determine upon what basis superannuation shall be calculated. It will be in their hands to determine the basis upon which they will be prepared to consider a scheme between them and their officers.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Is it not the case, according to the Section which I read, that they are bound to accept the Civil Service scheme for the time being, and bound to follow the Civil Service rules?

Sir H. NIELD: They can, under the Bill, prescribe the basis under which superannuation will be contributed. The proviso to which the hon. Gentleman called attention is that if bonuses form part, then the bonuses will automatically drop in accordance with the rules of the Civil Service, and, if the rules of the Civil Service are amended, then, of course, the amended rules will apply. Part-time officials will receive only a
corresponding amount in salary. A part-time officer, of course, is paid proportionately; he will contribute proportionately, and the superannuation allowance will be proportionate. With these few observations, I desire to thank the House very sincerely for the way in which they have received this Bill.

Mr. EDMUND TURTON: I do not desire to stand between the House and those other Bills which we are all so anxious to reach without the least possible delay, but I cannot help saying a word or two with regard to this Bill, because a great many years of my life have been spent in local government. I can assure the House that we have always felt the greatest difficulty in dealing with any of our officers who are getting on in years, and who are naturally anxious about their future, to know what is the proper course to take. Sometimes we have been obliged to follow the course of appointing them to the somewhat anomalous position of being in an advisory capacity. I think that has been an extremely undignified position for a public body or county council to be obliged under the circumstances to take up. I am glad to think that for the future, thanks to my hon. and learned Friend's pertinacity and knowledge of this subject, we shall no longer be obliged to follow that extremely undignified course of appointing them in an advisory capacity. It is the duty of those of us who carry on local government to see that the positions we offer are such as will attract the very best material for our purpose, and it is unquestionably the fact that, unless you offer to those in your employment some inducement by which they can look forward without fear to the future when they reach the age of 60, you are not likely to attract to your service the best material for your purpose. In other works, and on our railways, we have had for many years superannuation funds, and it was indeed an anomaly that the local government of the country, being of the importance that it is, should not have been able to give superannuation allowances to its officials. We have frequently discussed the matter. I think we are indebted to the House for passing with absolute unanimity, as I think we shall do, a Bill which will be for the welfare of the officials, and which most undoubtedly will assist in the
efficient carrying on of the local government of the country. Those who, like myself, occupy positions on county councils, can look forward, having regard to this Measure, to attracting the very best material for the important business with which we are entrusted.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be re-committed."
I hope the House will allow me to say a few words in support of this Motion. The object of the Bill is to provide that machinery which is not affixed to the building shall not be taken into account with regard to assessment, for rating purposes.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. The hon. Member, as I understand, desires to move, on the consideration of this Bill, that it be re-committed. I want to quote a few words from Erskine May about the re-committal of Bills. I am afraid I have here a rather old edition (1906), but I find on page 497 a statement which I do not think has been altered in subsequent editions. It is as follows:
On consideration of a Bill on Report, no Clause or Amendment may be proposed which creates a charge upon the public revenue, or upon rates or local burthens upon the people, but the Bill may be recommitted in respect of any such proposed Clause or Amendment.
Here there is no Clause or Amendment which imposes a charge upon the public revenue or on the rates or on local burthens. Therefore, according to Erskine May, a Motion for re-committal on consideration of a Bill can only be made as regards a Clause which imposes a charge upon the local revenue or upon rates or local burthens. I am further strengthened in that view by words which occur later on. They are these:
It may be necessary to recommit a Bill to a Committee of the whole House, and occasionally to a Select Committee, before it is read a Third time.
I venture to say that the proper interpretation to be put on these words is this, that when, on consideration of a Bill, a Clause is going to be proposed which does impose a burden in any way, the Bill can be recommitted in respect of that particular Clause, but where there is no Clause of that sort, the proper time to move the recommittal of the Bill is on the Third Reading, and not now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not read the words quoted by the right hon. Baronet in the way in which he has put them. I read the first part and the second part as distinct propositions, the first part dealing with what may or may not be moved on consideration of a Bill, and the second part containing the simple announcement of the fact that a recommittal Motion is possible. Therefore I do not think the point raised by the right hon. Baronet is a good one.

Sir D. NEWTON: The object of the Bill is that machinery shall not be taken into account for rating purposes if it is not affixed to the premises. We were told in the Debate on the Second Reading that one of the objects of the Bill was to give to England and Wales that which Scotland has long enjoyed, namely, an equitable and efficient system of assessment for rating. I regard this rather as an attempt to force on England and Wales a system which would not work equitably, and would not prove a valuable addition to our present rating system. Some of us are not prepared to admit, as a matter of course, that a principle which is working well in Scotland will of necessity, work well here, and I venture to suggest there is no parity between the respective rating systems operating in Scotland and in England and Wales at the present time, nor will this Bill bring about such parity until and unless the same course of action is taken in regard to abatements, deductions, allowances and other factors of that kind affecting what the ratepayers have to pay. On the Second Reading of this Bill we were informed that our manufacturers were finding themselves manacled and shackled. A similar Bill was brought to the attention of this House 32 years ago and the Measure has made 17 different public appearances. It seems very strange, if the Bill were really a workable proposition, that no Government should have taken
it up officially and that it should have been so long before the House and made such extraordinary little progress. Is not that a clear indication that during that long period Parliament has felt that this would be an unwise and improper concession? This, however, is not the ground on which I ask the House to sanction the recommittal of the Bill. I want to urge it upon broad general grounds—on the ground, namely, that the information before the House is not sufficient to justify a far-reaching Measure of this kind. This Bill will not introduce the millennium; on the contrary, it will bring a great deal of friction into our already complicated rating system. It does not offer any clear cut definition in regard to certain vital points. In the first place, it does not give any definition of "first motive power," and that is a very important point.

Sir F. BANBURY: On a point of Order. Is it not out, of order on a Motion to recommit a Bill to deal with whether or not it is a good or a bad Bill, or whether a certain new provision should be put into it, because a fresh provision can be put into it on Report? Because a particular alteration should be made, that is no reason why we should proceed to make it now, instead of waiting for the Report stage. It seems to me that the hon. Member is really making a Third Reading speech.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it will be necessary for the hon. Member to show some reason why the Bill should be recommitted and dealt with otherwise than by the whole House on Report.

Sir D. NEWTON: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As a new recruit, I find it very difficult to conform with all the technicalities with which the right hon. Baronet who has twice interrupted me is familiar. I would respectfully ask for the sympathy of the House in regard to the way in which I am venturing to present my case. This matter, only last Wednesday, came before the County Councils' Association, a body which represents every county council in England and in Wales, and they unanimously decided to ask this House to recommit the Bill on various grounds upon which I hope to be able to satisfy the House.
The, Association of Poor Law Unions is also a body—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that those are matters which can hardly be dealt with on this Motion. The hon. Member may put forward such reasons as that the Bill has been inadequately considered in Committee, or that the Government has not, intervened in the Committee to advise on points which should be considered by them. Those would be relevant reasons, but, the merits of the Bill, or the views of public bodies upon it outside the House, are really not relevant to the Motion.

Sir D. NEWTON: My general ground is that the Bill has not been adequately considered. When it was before the Committee, they had not the advantage of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland. That was a very strong Committee, presided over by Lord Dunedin, and its Report has only been issued quite recently. The Committee's terms of reference were:
To inquire into the present system under which taxation is raised by local authorities for local purposes in Scotland, to report whether the,system is equitable and economical, and, if not, to suggest what alterations in the system are desirable.
On those terms of reference, dealing with the question of machinery, I should like, if the House will allow me to do so, to quote the observations which that important Committee made, and I do so because the principal argument which was used in support of this Bill on the Second Reading was, "Look at what Scotland has got; look at the advantages her manufacturers have. Why should not those advantages be extended to English manufacturers?" Dealing with that question of the rating of machinery, this Committee reported as follows:
We have had our attention called to the somewhat chaotic state of decision in connection with the rating of machinery, and as to what items are to he considered assessable in industrial works.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the hon. Member has made a statement which is incorrect. He says that the Report of the Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland did not come out until after the Standing Committee had sat; but the Report of the Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland came out on the 11th May, and I hold in my hand
this statement: "Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 17th May, 1922." Therefore, the Report came out—

Mr. TOWNLEY: On a point of Order.

Sir F. BANBURY: You cannot interrupt.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only interrupt if the point of Order be not persisted in.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. Friend has, quite unintentionally I am sure, made a misstatement which upsets the whole of his argument, because, instead of—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I rather deprecate so long an interruption upon a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be attempting, under the guise of an interruption on a point of Order, to put himself in the position of being able to make two speeches.

Sir D. NEWTON: If I have made a mistake I am very sorry, but at the same time—

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The Report was not available.

Sir D. NEWTON: I venture to think that the facts contained in this Report had not been circulated to and digested by the Members of the Committee when they were dealing with the matter. The Report continues:
There has been a great development in recent times owing to the increased employment of electrical energy to work machines. Blame has been laid on the fact that the word "first" is used before the words "motive power".… The real grievance seems to us to consist in the varying practice of assessors, which makes it, as matters stand, almost impossible for the owner of a works to calculate with certainty what additional burden he may be assuming if he puts in additional machinery and other facilities. It has been suggested that some fresh definition should be sought which would ensure reasonable uniformity of practice. We think this a proper suggestion, but the task of finding such a definition is only possible if a practical inquiry is instituted as to the various classes of machinery employed and the effect of past decisions in regard to these classes. This would involve a separate and lengthy investigation, which must, we consider, be undertaken by a person or persons specially chosen for the purpose.
I venture to suggest, in view of this very important statement made by a Committee of experts upon this subject of the working of the Act in Scotland,
that it is only wise that we should carefully consider the matter and see whether the Bill should not be referred back to the Committee, in view of this further information, to see whether a definition cannot be incorporated in the Bill which will not be misinterpreted and which will really ease the situation and enable assessments to be made on an efficient and equitable basis. It is on these grounds that I desire respectfully to ask for the support of the House in moving the recommittal of the Bill. There are many arguments which, as I understand from the interruptions which have been made, I am not now entitled to introduce, such as have been used on the Second Reading. If that is the situation—I am not quite clear whether it is or not—I must confine myself simply to the one point that there was not sufficient information before the Committee when this Bill was under consideration, that more information is absolutely essential if hardship and injustice is not he imposed upon the ratepayers and that we must have a definition of the words "first motive power" and of the manner in which the Bill is likely to operate if it is given the effect of law.

Mr. TURTON: On a point of Order. I was Chairman of the Standing Committee which dealt with that Bill, and we had the advantage at that time of the attendance of a representative of the Ministry of Health. Are we not entitled to ask, as a matter of procedure, that there should be a representative of the Ministry of Health on the Front Bench when we are dealing with this Bill, having regard to the statements which were made before the Committee?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order, and it hardly justifies the hon. Member in interrupting.

Sir D. NEWTON: I will conclude my remarks, having, I think, now made my point, by saying that this is a very complicated matter. Anything which is going to take, as this will, 30 per cent. of the rates off certain people—[Interruption.]—I could show that the effect would be to take 30 per cent. of the rates off the shoulders of certain manufacturers and place them on the shoulders of others who might or might not be able to bear that burden.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is an argument on the merits.

Sir D. NEWTON: I will only conclude by saying that any Bill which will have such far-reaching effects should be very carefully considered, and that this complex subject does require further consideration if justice is to be done to all the interests and all the parties concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Baronet oppose the Motion?

Sir F. BANBURY: Yes.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: When the right hon. Baronet rose just now to a point of Order, I thought you ruled that it was not a point of Order but a speech. In that case he has already spoken. Can he speak again?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It was an attempted speech. I took care it was not an actual one.

Sir F. BANBURY: I wish to oppose this Motion, and I do not think there can be any doubt that if the hon. Gentleman goes to a Division, the House will unanimously reject his proposal, because he has not brought forward, with one exception, which was not correct, a single argument in favour of recommitting the Bill. The whole of his arguments, with the one exception which was incorrect, were against the principle of the Bill. Presuming, for the sake of argument, that he is right, and that there ought to be further Amendments introduced before the Bill proceeds, his proper course is to allow consideration of the Bill to take place when a great portion of the Members of the House are present, and when they can put in, at his instigation, those Amendments which he thinks ought to be put in. Then if he thinks, notwithstanding that, that the Bill is one which ought to be rejected, he will have an opportunity of making on the Third Reading the speech which he came down provided with, which he could not then make, but which will be in order on the Third Reading. To recommit a Bill you must give reasons why it should be recommitted, for instance, that it has not been adequately considered in Committee. The hon. Member has not given one single instance to show that the Standing
Committee did not adequately consider it. The only thing he brought forward was a statement that there had been a report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland on 11th May, which was not before the Committee. Here is a Report of Standing Committee A, Wednesday, 17th May, 1922. That is six days after the Report. There were 41 Members present and the Chairman. That is an extraordinarily good attendance. It is double the quorum, and you could not have had a better attendance. There is no reason whatever why the Bill should be recommitted.

Sir D. NEWTON: Was the Report of the Departmental Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland circulated to these 41 Members who were present, and was their attention drawn to the particular paragraph?

Sir F. BANBURY: That, of course, was the duty of those Members who were on the Committee and who held the view of the hon. Gentleman that the Bill was a bad one. It is no use coming here afterwards and saying that members of the Committee who share the hon. Gentleman's view did not do their duty.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: There were many Scottish Members present on the Committee.

Sir F. BANBURY: Supposing the members of the Committee did not know of the Report, everyone here knows of it, and here is an opportunity which ought not to be lost in the interests of the hon. Gentleman himself. He will be able to bring forward, not before the Standing Committee, but before the whole House, the arguments which are in this Paper and he cannot then say people were not aware of it, because he and I have both drawn the attention of the House to the statement, and if he does not do it, when we consider the matter on Report I will give him an undertaking that I will do it. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the proper course is at once to proceed to consideration of the Bill and advance arguments for and against.

Mr. CAUTLEY: rose

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Under the Standing Order, I must put the Question forthwith.

Question put, "That the Bill be recommitted."

Bill, as Amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Date of application of Act.)

This Act shall not affect any local rate made before the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and no alteration in pursuance of this Act of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date.—[Mr. Lorden.]

Brought up, and read the, First time.

Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The chief reason for this new Clause is that in Committee the Minister of Health somewhat remodelled the Bill, and fixed that the date on which it should come into force should be the 5th day of April, 1923. In the whole of

The House divided: Ayes, 44; Noes, 77.

Division No. 195.]
AYES
[1.3 p.m.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Galbraith, Samuel
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Glyn, Major Ralph
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnston, Major Harry
Gould, James C.
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Hogge, James Myles
Swan, J. E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Kenyon, Barnet
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lawson, John James
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lindsay, William Arthur
Wignall, James


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Oswald
Windsor, Viscount.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)



Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Myers, Tho[...]as
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Falcon, Captain Michael
Polson, Sir Thomas A.
Mr. T. Thomson and Sir D. Newton.


Finney, Samuel
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)





NOES


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Norman, Major Rt. Han. Sir Henry


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Hamilton, Sir George C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Barrand, A. R.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, James


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hinds, John
Perkins, Walter Frank


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor (Barnstaple)


Blane, T. A.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Remer, J. R.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Irving, Dan
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Jesson, C.
Simm, M. T.


Bruton, Sir James
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lorden, John William
Stevens, Marshall


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes
Lort-Williams, J.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Butcher, Sir John George
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Carr, W. Theodore
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Taylor, J.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O (R'ding)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Wise, Frederick


Ganzoni, Sir John
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murchison, C. K.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Nall, Major Joseph
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Nield, Sir Herbert
Mr. Marriott and Sir J. Remnant.

London that would mean practically a reassessment of the whole of the premises containing machinery next year. That was something that the promoters of the Bill did not contemplate, and they are in agreement with the Clause providing that it should not come into force until the next quinquennial period has elapsed. That would enable the next quinquennial valuation to come into effect without putting London to the expense of a revaluation at the present time. There is a new Clause on the Paper from the London County Council, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray):
This Act shall not, in its application to the administrative county of London, come into operation until the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, but re-
gard shall be had to the provisions of this Act in framing the new valuation lists to come into force on that date pursuant to the provisions of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.
I presume that that new Clause was not moved because my new Clause is wider in its application, and affects the whole country.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the Motion. It must be obvious that the change that is to be brought about, whether it be a good change or a bad change, will upset entirely the incidence of rating as applied to industrial areas. Rightly or wrongly, we are going to remove a burden from the shoulders which are accustomed to bear it, and we are going to put it on other shoulders. It is very undesirable that at the present time, when rates have reached an intolerable point in large industrial areas, that we should add further to the difficulty by altering the incidence of taxation in this way. A number of hon. Members waited on the Prime Minister recently on behalf of the local authorities and Poor Law guardians, and complained that the rates had amounted in some cases to 30s. in the £, and that it was a burden which could not be met at the present time. They sought assistance from the Treasury. That gives us an illustration of the difficulties which are encompassing local authorities to-day. This is not the time to take a burden from the shoulders of one section of the community and to add to the burdens of others.
What will be the immediate effect of this Bill, apart altogether from the question of principle? In those areas which are now heavily burdened, you are going to transfer from industry on to the rest of the community a burden which will vary from a few pence to many shillings in the £ on the local rate. You are not relieving the local authorities in the least. You are merely altering the incidence of the burden by taking it from the shoulders of the manufacturers and the owners of large works and putting it on the shopkeepers, the owners of small property and the tenants of houses. Surely, when at the present time there is the greatest difficulty experienced because of the shortage of houses, and when there is great difficulty in getting people to build houses, it is not the time to add to those difficulties,
and add to the rates that are put on cottage property. Under the Rent Restrictions Act, apart from the ordinary play of economic forces, any increase in rates which occurs has to be added to the rent which is charged to the occupier of the house. Therefore, this House must see that the immediate effect, whatever the ultimate effect may be, is to transfer a burden from the large industrial undertakings and to place the burden on the occupiers of small cotttage property. In many towns it will mean a direct increase in the rental of several shillings in the pound, and this at a time when it is almost impossible to get in rents on account of unemployment and low wages. It would be exceedingly foolish at this particular juncture to make this change. I am surprised that the Ministry of Health is not represented. On a matter of such importance which is going to remodel the existing rating system we ought to have their guidance.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: Only in certain districts, which are very few, is there machinery rating.

Mr. THOMSON: I am afraid that my hon. Friend speaks with very limited knowledge. The difficulty of the situation is the great anomalies which exist to-day on the question of rating. The proposed changes will affect considerably the incidence in a great many localities. The effect will be to transfer from industrial undertakings to the wage earner many pence, and in some cases many shillings, per week in the rent. Ultimately it will have to be found by industry. Wages will have to be raised because rents charged are higher. Therefore industry will not get ultimately any relief, but the immediate effect of the change at a time like the present, when rates are at breaking point, is going to be disastrous. The representative of the Ministry of Health should be here to give guidance on this particular question. Under the Housing Act in 1919 the Ministry are protected by the levy of a penny in the £ on the houses which they are building. The immediate effect of this Bill will be to reduce considerably the yield of that penny, and consequently the Treasury will be the poorer. Another reason for this delay is that further inquiries
should be made as to the effect of the change. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) suggested that the Report of the Select Committee on Local Taxation in Scotland was technically in the hands of Members before the Committee on this Bill sat.

Sir F. BANBURY: While the Committee was sitting.

Mr. THOMSON: I do not appreciate the distinction. Members had not considered that Report.

Sir F. BANBURY: The Scotsmen did.

Mr. THOMSON: Possibly we ought to have considered it, but because we did not consider it, we have a right to claim that this date should be deferred. On Second Reading the promoters said that in Scotland everything with regard to rating was working smoothly, and we must have the advantages which Scotland has. But in the Report to which I have referred there is an illuminating paragraph dealing with the very state of things which this Bill seeks to make applicable to this country, and during the years of inquiry which are now suggested there would be time for inquiring into how these defects which are referred to can be remedied. The Committee was a Committee of experts presided over by Lord Dunedin and comprising Lord Weir and other gentlemen skilled in industry and all these problems. In paragraph 105 of their unanimous recommendation they say:
We have had our attention called to the somewhat chaotic state of decision in connection with the rating of machinery and to what items are to be considered assessable in industrial works. There has been a great development in recent times owing to the increased employment of electrical energy to work machinery. Blame has been laid upon the fact that the word 'first' is used before the words 'motive power' in Section 1 of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Amendment Act, a fact which it is said has much enhanced the difficulty of decision. The real grievance seems to consist in the varying practice of assessors"—
That is the thing from which we were told we were suffering in this country.

Sir A. RICHARDSON: Is not the hon. Member making a Second Reading speech, instead of directing his attention to the Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have not noticed that it had that effect.

Mr. THOMSON: The point is that it is most desirable that the effect of this change should be delayed until the Report from which I am now quoting has been considered by the Government, and until they have carried out the recommendations of this Report that another Committee should be set up to inquire into how the defects which they find in the present Scottish system can be remedied. It is very important that there should be some inquiry, so that the evils of the Scottish system should not be transferred to this country. We wart to follow Scotland where Scotland leads, but we want to avoid the mistakes which Scotland has made as shown by this Report. The Report says:
The real grievance seems to us to consist in the varying practice of assessors which makes it, as matters stand, almost impossible for the owner of a works to calculate with certainty what additional burden he may be assuming if he puts in additional machinery and other facilities.
That is the condition of things which my hon. Friend who is responsible for this Bill seeks to impose upon the industrial works of this country. The Report goes on:
It has been suggested that some fresh definition should be sought, which would ensure reasonable uniformity of practice. We think that is a proper suggestion, but the task of finding such a definition is only possible if a practical inquiry is instituted as to the various classes of machinery employed and the effect of past decisions as applied to those classes. This would involve a separate and lengthy investigation, which must be considered and undertaken by a person or persons specially chosen for the purpose.
Finally, the Report says:
The law relating to the valuation of machinery requires amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that the new Clause relates only to the date of application of the Bill.

Mr. THOMSON: My argument is that we should accept this new Clause. During the delay inquiry could be held. I am glad that there is present the Minister of Health. This Bill will make a considerable difference in the incidence of rating. The Minister of Health has said several times that a Cabinet Committee is considering the whole question of
rating. An additional argument in favour of postponement of the operation of this Bill is that we should not deal with the matter piecemeal but should first have the findings of the Cabinet Committee.

Sir J. REMNANT: In order to save time, may I say that I gladly accept this reasonable Amendment?

Major BARNES: I think the supporters of this Bill are meeting its opponents in an extremely reasonable and moderate spirit. When I moved the rejection of the Bill on Second Reading, I put forward two main arguments. The first was that this was not an opportune time for bringing such a Bill into operation. The effect of the Amendment would be to carry the Bill over this time, and so far my objection is met. The second reason I gave was that I thought this problem should be related to the whole problem of rating. The Amendment will give us a period of time in which that can be done. That meets my second objection. On the Paper is a number of Amendments which have for their object the shaping of this Bill upon technical lines, which are thought to be right and proper by those who are expert with the matter. They may lead to a long, and, on the whole, perhaps not a very profitable discussion. After all, this House is not a House of experts. The Scottish Committee which inquired into the matter says that the Scottish law wants amending and that it is a matter for a body of experts. I am sure that every Member of the House who wants this Bill passed and believes in its principle, does not want on the Statute Book a Bill which, after 20 years of experience, the people of Scotland have concluded wants amending. I do not complain for a moment of the attitude of the Ministry of Health. All that the Ministry has done has been to try to get a good Bill. If the Minister of Health could now assure the House that he would set up a Departmental Committee which would look into this question with the assistance of experts, and take into account the decisions already given in Scotland, and the different classes of machinery to which the Bill would apply, and, having done so, recommend to the Minister Amendments which would make this Bill really workable and efficient, it
would help to shorten our discussions this afternoon and lead to good results. If we do not get that assurance it will be necessary for us to proceed with the Amendments on the Paper.

Sir J. REMNANT: Will hon. Members agree to let the Bill go through?

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: I think the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) is not only most valuable, but also extremely fair, and if some agreement of this kind could be entered into, it would be very desirable. I may point out to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), who spoke so strongly on this matter, that in Lancashire, where there is an enormous number of cotton mills, it is only in a few towns that the machinery is rated. The result is that the people with the most up-to-date and the best equipped mills are handicapped in favour of the retrograde and old-fashioned mills with machinery which should not be in operation at all. There are many unions where they do not rate machinery. Disparities and anomalies are numerous, and if this Bill were passed, these would be eliminated.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting away from the new Clause which we are discussing.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: I only desire to add that, during the extra time which is secured under this new Clause, the matter can be considered, and, for my part, I desire to associate myself with the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): I do not quite follow the procedure suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes). I fully realise, as everybody does, that the subject is full of technical difficulties and the Bill, as it stands, is by no means perfect, but requires considerable alteration from the technical point of view. On the other hand, we are not in any way hostile to the Bill or anxious to prevent it passing the Report stage to-day. There is another place in which Amendments can be inserted of a purely technical character. I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne, and those
associated with him, are prepared to withdraw their Amendments on the understanding that the Departmental Committee will go into the technical points with a view to the introduction later on of an Amending Bill. Reference has been made to the Report of the Scottish Committee. This Bill is largely based on the Scottish practice, and I do not believe you will ever have a Bill in regard to which a Departmental Committee will not suggest alterations and improvements. I am not quite so much impressed by the Scottish Report as some hon. Members. I shall be quite ready to undertake to set up a Departmental Committee, as suggested, to go into these points if the general principle be adopted.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I am glad to hear what the Minister of Health has said and I wish him to go a little further in putting this matter before a Departmental Committee and to ask that Committee to consider the effect on particular industries. I wish to refer specially to the mining industry.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the Bill generally and not the new Clause.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I merely wished to ask that, in the consideration of this matter, regard should be bad to the interests of the mining industry, which, under these proposals, would be practically faced with ruin. I wish to point out that 33 per cent. of the whole rateable value is in the mining industry, and by this Bill it gets no relief whatever, or practically none.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: No!

Mr. RICHARDSON: The Bill only seeks to relieve machinery that is removable.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Again I would remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have already reminded other hon. Members, that this is outside the scope of the Clause which we are discussing.

Mr. RICHARDSON: On another point, Sir, I am glad this suggestion has been accepted, because it allows time for consideration. I trust that the House, irrespective of any Commission or any Inquiry, will carefully consider this
matter having regard to the interests of the principal industry of the country. Probably I am biassed in this matter, but if an additional rate is thrown upon the mining industry, five-sixths of it must be borne by the miners, who are to-day working for less than a subsistence wage.

Mr. GOULD: The suggestion which has fallen from the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) and has been acquiesced in by the Minister of Health should go a long way towards meeting the opposition which has been put up to the Bill. By deferring the operation of the Bill, as proposed in the new Clause, we shall have time to go into the whole question and also into the very crucial difficulty with which the mining industry in particular is faced under the proposed Measure. We do not object to the whole system of rating being reconsidered. We want that done, but care must be taken that the new rating does not press unduly on any one section of the community, and the Departmental Committee will give us an opportunity of avoiding that. The immediate operation of the Bill undoubtedly will have the effect suggested by the hon. Member who spoke last, namely that of depressing wages in the mining industry and making conditions even less tolerable than they are at the present moment. I hope the promoters of the Bill will accept the proposals put forward and take the assurance of the Minister of Health, and subject to that, I, on behalf of the Mining Association, say we will be quite satisfied.

Sir J. REMNANT: The last thing in the world which the promoters of the Bill desire is that there should be any injustice or unfairness. There is a great deal to be said in favour of the proposal that the terms in connection with the machinery sought to be exempted from rating, should be defined by experts. There are numerous technical terms with which, with all submission, this House is not quite competent to deal. The object of deferring the operation of the Bill until 1926 is obviously in order to save the enormous amount of expense which revaluation would entail, especially as revaluations have been made in the City of London and elsewhere for the next quinquennial period, and therefore the immediate operation of the Bill would inflict a hardship we are anxious to avoid
If I understand the suggestion correctly, we are to be allowed to get this Bill through. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. RICHARDSON: The Amendments are to be withdrawn.

Sir J. REMNANT: I understood the Bill was to go through on the distinct understanding that in the period between now and 1926 we are to have the Departmental Committee promised by the Minister of Health to settle all these points and, I hope, meet all the difficulties raised by various Members of the House, and that the conclusions should be put into force by an enabling Bill as soon as possible. That is a reasonable request, which I, for one, would be the last to object to in any way. I think it would meet the difficulties that have been raised, and I hope the House will allow that course to be followed.

Mr. TURTON: I will be very careful not to go outside the Rules of Order, and I will give no reasons at all for stating why it is perfectly impossible for me to accept the suggestion thrown out by the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) and accepted by the Minister of Health. Speaking on behalf of the County Councils Association, I can only say that I am instructed by them, and it is my intention, so far as I can, to take very good care that this Bill should not get its Third Reading this afternoon. I will not give my reasons until the time comes, but I can be no party whatever to the suggestion that has been thrown across the Floor. I look, as a rule, with grave suspicion on these concordats which are arrived at between the promoters of a Bill and a Minister, anxious to save trouble, anxious if they can not to promote any hostility in any quarter, and I can only say that when the time comes, on the Motion for Third Reading, I hope I shall be able to give sufficient reasons to induce the House not to give this Bill its Third Reading.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I oppose this Bill to the utmost of my power. Its object is to transfer burdens from the manufacturing class to the agricultural class.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member began by saying he was going to speak in opposition to the Bill, and I
must point out that we are only dealing with the proposed new Clause.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I think you will see, Sir. that I am going to keep to the point. As an agriculturist, I strongly oppose the Bill. If the arrangement suggested were accepted, that would be admitting the principle of this Bill, that machinery should not be rateable, and on no consideration could I agree to that. If, on the other hand, the promoters of this Bill were really in earnest in wishing this Committee set up and in wanting a real decision of experts as to whether any loose machinery might be excluded from the ordinary law of rating—what ought to be done and could very well be done in the three years provided by the extension of time proposed in this Clause—let them withdraw the Bill and let the Committee be set up, and then bring in a further Bill when the Committee has reported.

Sir J. REMNANT: We rely very largely on the Royal Commission on Local Taxation in support of the Bill, so that we are not going altogether without expert knowledge.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I am only dealing with the suggestion thrown across the Floor of the House. I think the Bill should be withdrawn now, and that the Committee could be set up as has been suggested.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am rather astonished that the promoters of the Bill have accepted this new Clause, because, after all, what does it do? It says:
This Act shall not affect any local rate made before the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-six, and no alteration in pursuance of this Ast of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date.
The result of that is that for a period of practically four years this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will remain a dead letter.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: As I read the Clause, it means that the purpose of this Act, which is to exempt certain machinery from rating, shall not have effect until the 1st April, 1926.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: A revaluation will have to be made.

Sir F. BANBURY: I really do not understand how that can be done, because the Clause says that
No alteration in pursuance of this Act of any basis or standard of any local rate or of any valuation list shall be made so as to operate before that date.
Those words, like most words in an Act, can be made by certain people to mean something which other people will say they do not mean, but, at any rate, they mean that a valuation can be made, but that when it is made it is not to operate, and what is the use of doing that? It is surely a waste of time, and I can see no object whatever in making a valuation list which shall not operate before that date. I have had a considerable number of letters written to me by various people and by various chambers of commerce, and, as I understood their desire, it was that this Bill should be passed in order that they might be exempted from the payment of rates on machinery so placed that it could be moved, but this Clause will stop all that. This Clause says that for three years and nine months you are not to have the advantage of this Bill, and in the meantime some Committee is going to be set up which may or may not do certain things. The Report of that Committee may be entirely against the provisions of this Bill, and then you are met by this extraordinary provision. You pass this Bill, with this Clause in, which is entirely against the object of the Bill, ostensibly for the purpose of allowing a Committee to report. When that Committee reports, who is going to bring in an amending Bill, because an amending Bill would be necessary to give effect to the Report of the Committee? Therefore, we are going to pass a Bill, if we put this Clause in, which shall not come into effect for three years and nine months, and which may, before that, be so altered by an amending Bill that it may never come into effect at all.

I am rather surprised, especially at my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant), who, I know, is very anxious that the Bill should become law, accepting this Clause. I know very often that hon. Members who are in charge of a Bill are so anxious to get it through that they are almost prepared to accept anything from anybody, but I am not at all sure that that is a wise course, and I should be rather inclined to ask my hon. Friends in charge of the Bill whether they have not acted a little hurriedly in agreeing to accept this Clause. I do not wish to enter into the question of whether the Bill is right or not, and it would be out of order to do so, but I think it is quite evident that the effect of this Clause, if passed, would be to resider the Bill practically of no value.

Mr. LORDEN: As a matter of explanation, may I point out to my right hon. Friend that in the original Bill nothing was to be done until 1923, and nothing could come into operation until 1924 As a matter of fact, it only postpones the Bill for two years.

Sir F. BANBURY: It may have been right to postpone it, because you could not help that, as you have to make new valuation lists, but it does not follow that we should insert this new Clause.

Major MOLSON: I hope there will be a spirit of compromise. I cannot agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The opponents of this Bill, I think, have met the proposers perfectly reasonably. All that we wish is that the Bill be made the. best possible Bill for England, and I cannot see why, if it has been waiting for 11 years, it cannot wait another three or four years in order that we may get the best Bill possible.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 18.

Division No. 196.]
AYES
[1.59 p.m.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bruton, Sir James
Fell, Sir Arthur


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Finney, Samuel


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Carr, W. Theodore
Frece, Sir Walter de


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, Samuel


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Been, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Gould, James C.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hamilton, Sir George C.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Stewart, Gershom


Hinds, John
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Swan, J. E.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Taylor, J.


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murchison, C. K.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Hurd, Percy A.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Irving, Dan
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Jesson, C.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Townley, Maximilian G


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Tryon, Major George Clement


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. William
Vickers, Douglas


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Parker, James
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Kiley, James Daniel
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Lawson, John James
Perkins, Walter Frank
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Poison, Sir Thomas A.
Wignall, James


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Remer, J. R.
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Lort-Williams, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Viscount.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Wise, Frederick


Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)



M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Stevens, Marshall
Sir J. Remnant and Mr. Lorden.


NOES


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Heyday, Arthur
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Nall, Major Joseph
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)



Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Sir F. Banbury and Mr. Turton.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Meaning of rateable hereditament.)

(1) In estimating for the purpose of any local rate, or of the basis or standard thereof, or of any valuation list levied or made on or after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, the value of any hereditament occupied for any trade, business, or manufacture, there shall be taken into account such machinery only as is fixed or attached to the hereditament, and cannot he removed from its place without necessitating the removal of any part of the hereditament.
(2) This Section shall not apply in the ease of any machinery or plant used in or on a hereditament for producing or transmitting first motive power or for heating or lighting the hereditament.

Mr. LORDEN: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "levied or made on or after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three."
This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which we have just added to the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words,
such machinery only as is fixed or attached to,
and to insert instead thereof the words,
(a) machinery, tools, and appliances in or on.
I said a little while ago that I had no complaint to make against the action taken by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this Bill, but I think I have some ground of complaint at the present moment. I think hon. Members opposite, too, have a ground of complaint because the fate of the Bill this afternoon may depend upon a dear understanding of what the Ministry of Health intends to do in this matter. The position as it was left when we were discussing the last proposed new Clause was that some of my hon. Friends here were not clear as to the scope of the Departmental Committee which the Minister of Health has undertaken to set up. I rather gathered that their acquiescence in the course of the subsequent proceedings hinged upon a very clear understanding of what it meant.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Absolutely!

Major BARNES: In these circumstances it seems to me that the Minister of Health should be here now. This is
a matter of more than mere courtesy; it is a matter of very great importance. If he had been here I should have proceeded at once to inquire from him most specifically what he was proposing to do with this Departmental Committee. I do not know whether the hon. Gentlemen promoting the Bill can use any efforts to get him here, but in his absence I feel I must go on with my Amendment as it stands and trying to bring the House to a clearer sense than it possibly has of the difficulties that such a Committee may remove.
The Bill deals with the question of machinery in the first and second Subsections of Clause (1). If hon. Members will look they will find that in Subsection (1) the only word that is used is the word "machinery," whereas in the subsequent Sub-section they will find the words "machinery or plant." That discrepancy between the two Sub-sections is bound to lead to a very considerable amount of confusion in interpreting the Bill. It will seem as if it was the intention of Sub-section (1) to exclude all plant, and that only machinery was to be taken into account, whereas in Sub-section (2) you have both machinery and plant taken into account. This question of differentiating between machinery and plant is a most difficult question. If the Minister of Health had been here I would have reminded him of a memorandum which, I understand, he has received from the Rating Surveyors' Association on this extremely important and difficult technical point. That association does not concern itself in any way with the principle of the Bill or the policy; it simply deals with the difficulties that will arise practically in the interpretation, and the association has submitted these difficulties to the Minister in what, I should like to say, is a very disinterested spirit. There is no doubt about it that if this Bill comes into operation as it is the work of these gentlemen will be immensely increased, and they may look forward to a very prosperous time for at least a few years. Under the circumstances, I think the association have shown a considerable amount of public spirit. The Amendment down in my name, and that of several hon. Friends behind me, is an endeavour to bring the two Sub-sections into absolute correspondence.

Sir J. REMNANT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be prepared to accept the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) which proposes to leave out the words "Machinery as is fixed or attached to the hereditament and cannot be removed from its place" and insert the words "machines, tools, or appliances as are so fixed that they can be removed from their place"? I think that would meet his case.

Major BARNES: I am not quite sure, but—

Mr. LORDEN: What about the subsequent Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, that speaks of "machinery, tools or appliances"?

Major BARNES: As I understand the proposal, which to some. extent I think might be adopted the difficulty is this: the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) deals with two questions—first with a definition as between machinery, and machines, tools or appliances; then it also turns to the question of fixtures and attachments. These are two questions which we think ought to be dealt with quite separately. I think that we should first of all determine the question as to the correspondence between the two Sections and the insertion of the same words in each, and then proceed to deal separately with the question of fixed or attached machinery.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The other Amendment on the Paper deals with the same subject, but if one of these Amendments be moved then it will rule out the other.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: If the other Amendment is closely examined, I think it will be found to be distinctly different in principle.

Major BARNES: I am going to make another suggestion which will enable the Minister of Health to elucidate the position. I would like to move my Amendment down to the word "appliances."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words, "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to," and to insert instead thereof the words, "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances."
This raises an important question, and it confines the Amendment to a clear definition of what is affected. I think my hon. Friend opposite will have no difficulty in accepting those words. We have now the advantage of the presence of the Minister of Health, and I would like to inform him what is the position. I do not intend to repeat anything that is unnecessary, but I wish to inform the Minister of Health that some of my hen. Friends behind me are not quite clear as to the scope of the reference to the Committee which he has been good enough to set up. If I have a satisfactory explanation, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment without any further discussion, and if the right hon. Gentleman will clear up the situation, we shall probably make greater progress.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment. I wish, however, to make it quite clear that I do not share entirely the views of my hon. Friend. and I reserve my right to move any of the Amendments which I have down on the Paper, no matter what arrangement is come to with the Minister of Health.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I wish to say that I am in exactly the same position.

Sir A. MOND: I thought I had made it quite clear when I spoke last on this subject what my proposal was. I think I stated clearly that if the Bill was sent to a Committee, they should deal with technical questions such as those raised by the hon. and gallant Member for East. Newcastle (Major Barnes). I understand now that hon. Members are not prepared to come to any understanding on the subject and I do not see under those circumstances that my acceptance of the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member would have any practical utility. It seems to me that hon. Members are opposed to the principle of the Bill. Obviously if this House passes this Measure as it stands I cannot sot up a Departmental Committee to go into the question as to whether the Bill ought to he passed or not, or as to how it affects other industries. Departmental Committees can only inquire into questions which tend to make the Bill better and more workable on the principle which has been accepted by the House.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have much difficulty in understanding the difference between the two phrases which are used in this Amendment. I do not think the House has been treated respectfully in regard to this matter, because apart from the principle of whether machinery is to he rated or not we are also discussing what is a purely legal question, and I think we ought to have had the assistance of one of the Law Officers of the Crown. This does add to our difficulties because we really do not know what we are dealing with or deciding. I have listened very carefully to the Proposer of this Amendment and I do not understand what is the distinction between the two phrases he has used. I am anxious to accept his Amendment to leave out "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to." My point is that machinery certainly ought to be rated and to that extent I accept that part his Amendment, but when he comes to insert the words, "machinery, machine tools and appliances," I do not know whether that will be an extension or a diminution.

Major BARNES: It is an extension.

Mr. CAUTLEY: Then it is meant to be an extension of the exemption from rating.

Mr. RICHARDSON: No, it is the other way.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I confess that I really do not know what is the difference. I think I shall support the Amendment to leave out the words as suggested, but I cannot support the insertion of the words which are proposed.

Mr. LORDEN: This proposal does not seem to carry us much further, and if the hon. and gallant Member could see his way to withdraw the Amendment and adopt the next Amendment, which covers all the ground, it would clear away any ambiguity there may be at the present time. This Amendment goes a very little way and does not help much. I believe that this Amendment was put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray) at the instigation of the London County Council. It achieves what the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) wants to do, and it goes a little further. If he would adopt that Amendment, I think
the promoters of the Bill would be prepared to meet him.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: If we could get a promise from the promoters of the Bill that they would accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington—

Sir J. REMNANT: I will agree to it at once.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: That, I think, will remove the bone of contention. Rating authorities are continually going to the Law Courts to decide what is fixed and irremovable machinery, and the acceptance of that Amendment will remove some of our objections. Thousands of pounds are wasted in legal expenses in fighting these questions in the Law Courts, and, in order to simplify the words in the Section and make the position clear, I shall be happy to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington and ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) to withdraw his Amendment.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not understand the meaning of these two Amendments. The Minister of Health said that this is not a Government Bill, and therefore it is not necessary for the Law Officers to be present. He is of equal importance with a Law Officer, and he is here. Why, therefore, cannot we have the presence of a Law Officer? It is an extremely difficult Bill to understand, and we ought to have a Law Officer to explain the effect of these various Amendments. I cannot understand the action of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir J. Remnant). He is accepting all the Amendments of his opponents, with the result the Bill will be of little value. The Clause says:
In estimating for the purpose of any local rate or of the basis or standard thereof, or of any valuation list. … there shall be taken into account such machinery only as is fixed or attached. …

Sir J. REMNANT: Of course, if the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington were accepted, the word "not" would require to be inserted after the word "shall" ["there shall be taken into account"]. Otherwise, it would be nonsense.

Sir F. BANBURY: We have passed that point, and cannot go back. It is not sense as it is, and I do not know what is the position. If we had had a Law Officer present, we should not have got into this mess. As far as I can see, the effect of the Amendment would be that, whereas at present only such machinery as is fixed to the hereditament is rated, all machinery will be rated. I understood that the Labour party were opposed to the Bill because they did not want certain machinery rated.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Not a single Member of the Labour party has expressed that view. Our view is that the rating of machinery should be made uniform in practice.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was only endeavouring to find out exactly the views of the members of that party. I was mistaken in what I said, and I apologise and withdraw. Had their views coincided with mine I would have given them such little assistance as my ability would enable me to do. I do not think we can accept this Amendment. I do not see how we can. I think it had better be withdrawn to enable my hon. and gallant Friend to put something else in. It is an old rule of the House that an Amendment cannot be made which makes nonsense of the Bill, and, as this Amendment does make nonsense of it, I do not see how we can proceed with it.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that the Amendment makes nonsense of the Bill. When it has been dealt with one way or the other, then it will be for those responsible to decide what shall be their next step, but that cannot be decided until this Amendment has been disposed of. I propose to put the Question that the word "such" stand part of the Bill, and if it be agreed that it shall stand part, then the words proposed to be left out will remain in. But if, on the other hand, the word "such" be cut out—and I understand that the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is willing that it should be—then all the words of this Amendment come out, and I understand the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) will move to insert the words "in or on." If he does that, the second Amendment after this I think would read properly. I beg the House not to enter on discussions as
to technicalities, but to confine their attention to the question whether they wish the words shall remain in or come out.

Sir A. MOND: I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) is perfectly logical, and if the House inserts the following Amendment, then the whole thing will read logically. As I understand it the Amendment is to leave out the words "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to" and to insert instead thereof the words "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances." Then later it will be proposed to insert the words "or fixed or attached thereto save that there shall not be taken into account such machinery, tools or appliances as are not fixed or attached or are only so fixed or attached to the hereditaments that they can". This seems to be to be perfectly logical and there is no great complication about it.

Sir J. REMNANT: I should be very sorry if I misled anyone by saying that I would accept a compromise on this point. It seems to me, however, that without the word "not" being inserted

after "shall" ["there shall he taken"], both these Amendments will he directly contrary to the whole object of the Bill. What we want is that all loose machinery shall be exempt from rating—that is to say all machinery that is not attached to the freehold.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Are we now to understand that the acceptance of the Clause down in the name of the hon. Member for Accrington (Major Gray) is going to be withdrawn?

Sir F. BANBURY: It cannot be.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment of the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) will come after this Amendment, if it be accepted. The Amendment is to leave out the words "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to" and to insert the words "(a) machinery, machine tools and appliances." I propose to put the Question that the word "such" stand part of the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'such' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 28.

Division No. 197.]
AYES
2.43 p.m.


Acland, Rt. How Francis D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Alnsworth, Captain Charles
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C (Kent)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Hayday, Arthur
Parker, James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Parry, Lied.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Hogge, James Myles
Perkins, Walter Frank


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bartley-Denniss, Sir Edmund Robert
Holmes, J. Stanley
Purchase, H. G.


Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil
Hopkins, John W. W.
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Benn, Sir A. S, (Plymouth, Drake)
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hurst, Lieut,-Colonel Gerald B.
Rose, Frank H.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Irving, Dan
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Bruton, Sir James
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stevens, Marshall


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Kiley, James Daniel
Stewart, Gershom


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Sir Alan Hughes
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Carr, W. Theodore
Lindsay, William Arthur
Taylor, J.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lorden, John William
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Vickers, Douglas


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Windsor, Viscount


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wise, Frederick


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murchison, C. K.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Nall, Major Joseph



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Captain Sir Hamilton Benn and


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Sir J. Remnant.


Hamilton, Sir George C.




NOES


Barker, G (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gould, James C.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Barnston, Major Harry
Hinds, John
Waring, Major Walter


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Lawson, John James
Wignall, James


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur



Fell, Sir Arthur
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.
TELLERS FOB THE NOES.—


Finney, Samuel
Sutherland, Sir William
Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan and


Galbraith, Samuel
Swan, J. E.
Major Barnes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Gray), to leave out the words
machinery only as is fixed or attached to the hereditament, and cannot be removed from its place,
and to insert instead thereof the words
machines, tools, or appliances as are so fixed that they can be removed from their place,
is not in order, since it depends on words above.

Mr. CAUTLEY: On a point of Order. All that has been done so far has been to decide that the word "such" stand part of the Bill. That was the Motion put from the Chair, and the point of Order that I wish to raise is whether the words that the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) sought to insert should not now be "machinery, tools and appliances."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No.

Mr. CAUTLEY: If not, then may I move these words?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Which words does the hon. and learned Member desire to move?

Mr. CAUTLEY: I desire that the words
machinery, tools and appliances" should come in after the word "such," in place of the word "machinery.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Will the hon. and learned Member read the Clause as it would stand if his Amendment were accepted?

Mr. CAUTLEY: I will explain exactly what I want to put in. The Clause would then read
In estimating for the purpose of any local rate…there shall be taken into account such machinery, tools and appliances…
I want to enlarge the word "machinery," as the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle did, by adding the words "tools and appliances." I only differ from the hon. and gallant Member in regard to the words he proposes afterwards, limiting it to fixed machinery. I wanted more than that, if I could get it; but on this question I should like to move to insert, after the word "such," the words "machinery, tools and appliances."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The word "machinery" is in already. I think the hon. and learned Member would be in order in moving; after the word "machinery," to insert the words "tools or appliances."

Major BARNES: "Machine tools."

Mr. CAUTLEY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "machinery" ["there shall be taken into account such machinery"], to insert the words "machine tools and appliances."
The object of this Amendment is rather to enlarge the definition of the subject-matter of the Bill. As it stands at present, it is limited to machinery, and there is no definition at all as to what machinery consists of As the law at present stands, in fixing the assessment. for any factory or works, there has to be taken into account, not only what is known as the fixed machinery, including the driving power of the factory and the main shafting and belting, but also, first of all, machinery that is fixed by its own weight or attached by screws, and which might be described as trade fixtures: but that would rather include what are known as machines, not fixed tools.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought the hon. and learned Member was moving these other words in a different sense from that already proposed by the hon.
and gallant Member for East Newcastle. Otherwise, as I understand it, the last decision would be rendered nugatory.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I raised this matter on a previous Amendment and got a promise from the occupant of the Chair at that time that this Amendment would be in order, and he distinctly put from the Chair the word "such,' and, because of the confusion that we have got into, it escaped the knowledge and notice of hon. Members with regard to the word "not" on page 2546, which landed us into some confusion and thickness of speech with regard to what was meant by the words of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes), though he was not responsible for it at all, and the promoters of the Bill were prepared to accept the wording which I was going to move. There is no meaning in the words "machine tools" at all in the language of the Amendment. What the hon. Member meant was all machines, tools or appliances as are so fixed that they can be removed from their places. I definitely raised the point and for that reason the Deputy-Speaker only put the word "such."

Mr. CAUTLEY: I think I am right. The original Amendment was to leave out the words "such machinery only as is fixed or attached to." Then it was pointed out, as I understood it, if the whole of those words were put, that would rule out the next Amendment, and for that reason only, so that the House might be free to put in whatever words it pleased after the word "such," that word only was put, and the real Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) has never been decided on at all. I should have preferred him to go on and insert the words that he has on the, Paper. I strongly support those words and, as he did not do it, I suggest that I am entitled to do it. These words have never bean put to the House.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was not in the Chair when this point originally rose, and, in view of the twilight which has fallen on the proceedings, I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.

3.0 P.M.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I am moving this on behalf of the agricultural community, and of those people who live in small
houses in industrial towns. Seeing that the effect of the Bill is, broadly speaking, to transfer from the manufacturers a great part of the local burdens and put them on to the small householders in urban districts, and on to agriculturists and private householders in rural districts, it is to our interest, as representing working-class and rural populations, to see that the rating of machinery is continued, and, if possible, extended, rather than narrowed. These words that I am proposing will put an end to the disputes which continually take place before the gentlemen who have to make these assessments, because there can be no doubt where you have the words "machinery, tools and appliances in conjunction.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment. I do not mind whether it is the word "machinery" or the word "machines." If your ruling is against machinery—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The word "machinery" is already in the Clause. I was going to put the Question, after "machinery," to insert "machine tools and appliances."

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: That will meet the purpose. The reason we are opposing the Bill in its present form is because of the legal position which has been continually created with regard to the difference as between fixed machinery and machinery that is removable. I shall drop that opposition if the promoter of the Bill is prepared to carry out the promise he made when we were discussing the last Amendment, and allow the Clause as amended to go through. If not, the rating authorities are continually being disturbed. They do not know where they are. Cases are going to the Courts and the burden of the rates upon the union authorities is such that I hope nothing will be done to increase their difficulty. Everywhere in the industrial districts the rates are at the highest point they have been in this century, and if you are going to change the method, at least let us hope it will be changed in the direction of equity and that all machinery, tools and appliances shall be rated and placed upon a uniform basis. I hope to hear from the promoters that the, undertaking they gave will be carried out. I have never known a bargain made across the Floor of the
House departed from. The whole of the litigation has been due to the ambiguity in the present Act of Parliament. These words will make it quite clear and will save ratepayers and rating authorities thousands of pounds in litigation.

Sir J. REMNANT: I have been appealed to not to withdraw from an undertaking I gave just now. That would be quite contrary to the whole principle of the Bill, unless the word "not" were inserted in the previous Amendment. The arrangement was made under an entire misapprehension, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not bind me to that sort of bargain. I do not now quite see what the Amendment is. I take it it is a new Amendment, after the word "machinery," to add the words "machine tools and appliances." Does mean machine tools or appliances in or on?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The present Amendment is to insert, after the word "machinery." the words "machine tools and appliances."

Sir J. REMNANT: I do not think there can be much objection, but how you are going to fix a machine tool I do not know.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: It is perfectly clear that this Amendment is only for the purpose of making the definition more clear. So long as the word "only" follows it, and we alter the word "is" into "are," I do not see why the supporters of the Bill should oppose it. These things are fixed more or less steadily on the premises.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: The question just mentioned by the hon. Member raises a great difficulty in my mind. We are trying to define a little more clearly what is to he rated and what is not to be rated. The next word which appears is the word "appliances." It is already exceedingly difficult to know whether tools are to be included. When we get to the word "appliances," it is more difficult. In the case of machinery which is erected, you get all sorts of things which are attendant upon that machinery, such as water tanks which are necessary for cooling the engines. Are those appliances? Then when you come to the question of bellows which are necessary in some processes for the machinery, are they included? Before
we accept the Amendment we ought to have an explanation.

Mr. GOULD: I cannot see why we should accept the words, for the simple reason that they would put us in a very peculiar position. Take the engineering and shipbuilding trade. What about motors? We have motors fixed for dealing with certain things, and in Scotland it has been determined that these are rateable. We contend that they are easily portable from place to place, and that they are put in for the purpose of increasing production. Under the decision of the Scottish Courts they will be excluded from the word "appliances." I am sure that we cannot accept this.

Mr. LORDEN: I hope that we shall have nothing to do with this Amendment. It will destroy the value of the Clause, which says:
There shall he taken into account such machinery only.
Now you propose, to put in tools, which are the very things which we want to eliminate from rating.

Major BARNES: This Debate shows the extraordinary confusion which exists, and the advantage which would have accrued if we had carried out the suggestion that I made. With regard to appliances, I might quote a very short extract from a judgment by Lord Salveson, given in the Land Valuation Appeal Court for Scotland, on this question:
Under this same heading a question was raised as to whether certain rails bolted to uprights in the walls of many of the buildings would come under the words of the Act, Machines, tools or appliances.'
I would point out that these words are the words in the Scottish Act on which the hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to model himself:
The facts disclose that the rails are attached to the brackets on which they are raised by screw bolts and movable nuts, and by unscrewing the nuts and withdrawing the bolts the rails can be taken down without the necessity of removing any part of the building or taking the supporting column,, away. They constitute in my opinion an appliance for enabling the travelling crane to move from one part of the building to another, and as the travelling crane is held to come under the Act of 1902 it seems to me that the rails on which the crane travels satisfy the conditions of the Act and cannot be decided to be part of the hereditament. On the other hand the brackets and supports form part of the building and must be treated accordingly.
That is the sort of thing which they have in Scotland. The whole question turns on whether these words are of advantage to those who are opposing the Bill. It depends on whether the word "only" is going to remain in the Bill. If the word "only" is going to remain in, then the omission of these words "tools and appliances" is a real advantage. So it is extremely important that those of us who hold the view of my hon. and learned Friend opposite should know whether, when we have disposed of this Amendment, you will accept an Amendment to leave out the word "only," because if you rule that we cannot proceed with that Amendment, I think that it

Division No. 198.]
AYES
[3.15 p.m.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Gould, James C.
Swan, [...]. E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hinds, John
Thomson, T. (Middlesborough, West)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hagge, James Myles
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Barnston, Major Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Wignall, James


Beckett, Hon. Sir Gervase
Lawson, John James
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Beilalrs, Commander Carlyon W.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Bird, Sir William B. M. (Chichester)
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holdernees)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Pilditch, Sir Philip



Falcon, Captain Michael
Polson, Sir Thomas A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fell, Sir Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Cautley and Lieut.-Colonel


Finney, Samuel
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Watts-Morgan


Galbraith, Samuel
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.





NOES


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Purchase, H G.


Alnsworth, Captain Charles
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Haslam, Lewis
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hayday, Arthur
Remnant, Sir James


Beck, Sir Arthur Cecil
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hurd, Percy A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Irving, Dan
Stevens, Marshall


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stewart, Gershom


Bruton, Sir James
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Sutherland, Sir William


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Kiley, James Daniel
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Taylor, J.


Butcher, Sir John George
Lindsay, William Arthur
Terrell, George, (Wilts, Chippenham)


Carr, W. Theodore
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Vickers, Douglas


Dawson, Sir Philip
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Dockreil, Sir Maurice
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Edge, Captain Sir William
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Col. L. O. (R'ding)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Windsor, Viscount


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Murchison, C. K.
Wise, Frederick


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Younger, Sir George


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nield, Sir Herbert



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sir E. Bartley-Denniss and Mr


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l,W.D'by)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Lorden.


Hamilton, Sir George C.
Perkins, Walter Frank

ould he well to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I could not refuse an Amendment to leave out the word "only."

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The proposal is to leave out the whole of the words.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is not so. The question is, after the word "machinery," to insert the words "machine tools and appliances." That is the Question before the House just now.

Question put, "That those words he there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 40; woes, 106.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "only as is fixed or attached to" and to insert instead thereof the words "as is in or on."
As I pointed out before we divided, the last Amendment was in the nature of a gamble, depending on whether or not we got out the word "only." The effect of the Amendment which I now move is to make the Clause read
there shall be taken into account such machinery as is in or on the hereditament.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: On a point of Order. I suggest that the Amendment cannot be accepted because it is against the principle of the Bill as passed by the House on Second Reading. The principle of the Bill is to exempt this machinery from rating, and the Amendment would make it rateable by law.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Bill is one to amend the law relating to the rating of hereditaments containing machinery. I do not see that I can refuse the Amendment on the ground suggested.

Major BARNES: The Bill has been left in such a state of confusion that I did not realise the last. Amendment had not been carried. Therefore this Amendment is riot material and I do not propose to move.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: On a point of Order. Are we not to have a Division with regard to the principle which some of us contest as to the difference between fixed and immovable machinery? I was given a distinct promise by the then occupant of the Chair (Sir Edwin Cornwall) that we should have a discussion on the principle of the Bill. I understand now that you are ruling that out of order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that is so. If the hon. and gallant Member wants a Division on the principle of the Bill, he must wait till the Third Reading.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The principle was raised in the Amendment to which I am calling attention, and there was a distinct promise made from the Chair that we should have a discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I differ, and I say that the Amendment was accepted by the promoters, at which I was very much astonished.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid this is not in order. I can rule only on what I see before me.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "removal," and to insert instead thereof the word "disturbance."
This raises a point which is present to every one of the local authorities which have been dealing with this Bill. There is a division of opinion, I admit, on the general principle of the Bill amongst the local authorities, but they are all agreed upon this Amendment, which has reached me, not only from those who disagree with the principle of the Bill, but from those who agree with it. If the Amendment were made, the Clause would read, "without necessitating the disturbance"—instead of "the removal"—"of any part of the hereditament." That is not a trivial point, as I think can be shown by stating the fact that that very point is one which, in the interpretation of the Scotch Act, has been carried to the highest Court of Appeal, and it formed one of the principal points in the case to which I have already referred. The Scotch Act has the word "removal," and, seeing that what we are being asked to do is practically to accept the Scotch Act in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: No!"]—I do not think hon. Members ought to deny that. The whole Preamble of the Bill, when it was introduced, was based upon bringing the law in this country into line with the law in Scotland, and that was the argument which impressed the House—that you had one law in Scotland and another in England.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: That was not my object.

Major BARNES: The point I am bringing forward now is that this word "removal" in the Scotch Act has raised questions of such difficulty that they had to be taken to the very highest Court of Appeal in Scotland, and in an extremely important case brought before that Court so lately as 22nd February, 1922, which, I would point out, is a date some 20 years after the passing of the Scotch Act, this was one of the most material points raised. There the contention was as to whether a very heavy and valuable machine, which could be removed from its position by breaking away a portion
of the concrete upon which it rested, came within the meaning of the Act as something which could be removed from its place without removing any pert of the hereditament. The Scottish Court took the view that that was not a case in which you could get the benefit of the Act, although to remove the machine you had to cut away a portion of the bed upon which it rested. The case went to Appeal, but I will not trouble the House on this occasion with the words of the judgment. The whole point was as to whether, in applying the Act, and in determining whether certain machines did or did not come under the operation of the Act, the disturbance of the hereditament was something which really amounted to removal. The difficulties which present themselves can be seen very well in the memorandum which was placed before the Ministry of Health by the Rating Surveyors' Association—a memorandum which, I think, is entitled to the respectful consideration of the House. This is what they say with regard to the question of "removability"
With regard to the word 'removability' in the case of a machine in the open air, and not in a building, the machine being bolted to a block of concrete partly above ground and partly below ground, if in such a ease the machine be removed, thereby damaging a portion of the concrete above ground, would it be said that part of the hereditament had been removed?
These questions may appear to be in some degree fantastic, but that is because of the nature of the Measure with which we are dealing, and these are just the questions which present themselves to the surveyors and the lawyers who have to administer this Act, and, as far as possible, it is the business of the House to make the matter clear. Those who have promoted the Amendment think that if the word "removal" be taken out, and the word "disturbance" put in, very much less difference of opinion will arise. These surveyors go on to say:
In other words, is the portion of the concrete block which is above the ground brought within the words of lines 14 and 15 of the Bill? Under the present law, the concrete block would clearly be part of the rating hereditament, but under the Bill it would be a matter of doubt.
As the law stands at present, it is the opinion of these eminent rating surveyors that any damage done to this block of concrete would be a removal, and the idea of the Amendment is to make it per-
fectly clear that if the House wants "removal" to be interpreted in the sense that you can do considerable damage to the hereditament so long as you can put it right afterwards, the House will stand by the word "removal." If the sense of the House is that if you can restore the hereditament into substantially the same good condition after you have removed the machinery as before then that is giving the widest interpretation to the word "removal," and I suppose the House will stand by it. At all events, do let us have the thing clear! We want to narrow the operations of the Bill by inserting "disturbance" so as to make sure that it will only be actually loose and portable machinery that is excluded. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that he did not want loose and portable machinery to be rated. As the Bill stands the most ponderous machinery, which cannot in any sense be said to be either loose or portable, will be excluded if it can be removed without removing any part of the hereditament. According to the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he would not regard the fact that you had to break down a concrete block—

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: If it could be easily repaired.

Major BARNES: Yes, so long as repairs could be made. I think what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend does really give the House some idea of the scope of this Measure. Anybody who has the slightest acquaintance with factories, shipyards, and steel works must know that there is practically no machinery there which could not be removed under these conditions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that is exactly what is wanted. It is just as well that that should be made clear, because I think so far as a great many people think at all about this Bill all they suppose it is going to do is to exclude loose tools and small portable machines such as can be fairly compared, as the Minister of Health compared them, with the furniture of a house. People think that when this Bill speaks of machinery that it is machines that can easily be taken away. What really my hon. and learned Friend has in mind by machinery—I daresay if it was put to him he would say so—is not only machines in the narrow sense, but the
whole of the machinery of an industrial process inside the building.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: The machinery that belongs to the tenant, which is his property, which he has paid for, which he does not rent, and which he can remove at the end of the term, or which any future tenant can buy from him.

Major BARNES: Precisely. The machinery of the industry. Under this Bill he would, for example, go into a brewery, and would say, if you take away the vats and the tanks—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the beer!"] The more one goes into the question of these words, the more does one see something of their width and scope. Those who favour this Amendment think that differences of opinion should be narrowed down to the least possible amount, and that the word "disturbance" is very much better than "removal." The word "removal" can be given so wide a meaning that it is not a word that could be wisely used here. The word "disturbance," which narrows the operations and would prevent the enormously wide extension that is foreshadowed, is the right word to use.

Mr. GOULD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. LORDEN: I do not know what is meant by the word "disturbance."

Mr. W. THORNE: It is more than you can swallow.

Mr. LORDEN: I do not want to swallow an earthquake, and, therefore, I object to the word being put into the Bill. The hon. Member has referred to blocks of concrete, and I would like to say on this point that they are more easily moved than the hon. Member opposite. It would be utterly fatal to put in the word "disturbance." "Removal" is a definitely understood thing, but I really do not know what is meant by "disturbance." You can blow a thing up and that would be disturbance or you can have an earthquake, but to say that the word "disturbance" describes the position better is very extraordinary, not to say ludicrous.

Mr. W. THORNE: The last speaker said that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Major
Barnes) was endeavouring to cause obstruction. I do not think anyone can complain that there has been any obstruction up to the present. I only wish that on these benches we were as scientific obstructionists as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury).

Sir F. BANBURY: Is the hon. Member in order in making that observation? It is a most uncalled-for remark.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think it is out of order. I should not deem it offensive if someone described me as being scientific.

Mr. THORNE: I have been a Member of this House for 16 years, and I say without hesitation that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is the most scientific obstructionist I have ever heard of in this House or any other House. If all the hon. Members sitting on the Labour benches could obstruct in the same way as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, we should never have got as far as we have done with this Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We are now on the question of the leaving out of the word "removal" and the insertion of the word "disturbance."

Mr. THORNE: I never intend to be an obstructionist, but I am opposed to this Bill root and branch, and I shall support this Amendment.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I do not know any machinery attached to a mine that can receive exemption at all under the Bill. Every piece of heavy machinery must be held in place by concrete or something of that description, and under the word "removal" there is no earthly chance of people in mining areas having the benefit of the Bill. Those in industries represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite have made money, but neither miners nor mineowners have made anything at all in recent years, and yet they are to have thrown upon them this burden. The result will be to close down the mines. If this extra burden of taxation be thrown on to them, then, of course, they are down and out. I am afraid that incidentally more harm will be done to hon. Members opposite than they suffer from any grievous burden of taxation.

Sir E. BARTLEY-DENNISS: That is not the case. The rating of machinery is not compulsory in this country, and in and about the cotton districts machinery is not rated in 12 out of 19 unions. Even if it were rated, no burden would be thrown upon the mining population.

Mr. RICHARDSON: The hon. Member may be speaking of a large city, but I am speaking of the mining area, and I know the machinery which is at present rated is going to be relieved of the

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "any" ["the removal of
rating to the extent of 50 per cent. Those who are using machinery in every grade of industry ought to treat their brothers in industry with something like equity, but here hon. Members are refusing to help their brothers who are nearly down and out. I trust that the House will agree to the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'removal' stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 36.

any part of the hereditament"], does not appear to me to make any difference to the effect of the Clause.

Mr. LORDEN: The word "any" was thought to be unnecessary.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to insert the words
This Section shall not apply in the case of any machinery or plant which has been used in or on a hereditament before the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.
The object of this Amendment is to restrict the application of this partial Measure even still further, so that it may only apply to new machinery that is introduced after it passes into law. Many of us believe that, as it is such a partial Measure, the less influence that it can have, until the whole question is reviewed, the better. I move the Amendment also for the sake of its immediate effect, so that the burdens on other property which will be added by the effect of this Bill may not be increased. As has been already said, in large industrial areas there will be a transference of an added burden from industries and works on to others who are less able to bear it in a time of abnormal distress, and the more that transference can be reduced the better.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I beg to second the Amendment. At no period in the history of this country, and at no time in the history of its trade, could it be more ill-timed to make changes than at present. Having already carried an Amendment postponing the application of the Bill if it becomes an Act of Parliament, which I hope it will not—

It being Four of the Clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood Adjournded.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered upon Friday next (7th July).

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — FREE STATE TROOPS AND REBELS, DUBLIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): I have been asked in various quarters whether I
can give any further information to the House on the fighting which is proceeding in Dublin. I think I must say to-day, as I said yesterday, that the full, continuous report in the newspapers gives, on the whole, a very accurate account of what is proceeding and I have very little to add.
As the House will perceive from the report in the newspapers, the greater part of the Four Courts was successfully assaulted last night and occupied by Free State troops, and a number of prisoners were captured—between thirty and forty—including a commandant of some importance on the insurgent side named Barry, who was one of the leaders who signed the proclamation for a general rising which was issued last night by the Republican forces.
About noon to-day the Four Courts were reported to be on fire, and shortly afterwards a violent explosion took place, the effects of which were felt in all parts of the city. This explosion threw into the air large numbers of documents stored in the Four Courts among the débris. The explosion was caused by a mine which had been laid by the insurgents, and which was sprung by them under the part of the building occupied by the Free State troops. Thirty of the Free State troops have been injured or killed by the explosion.
The attack was continued and the irregulars were still holding out in a corner of the building at one o'clock. At that time the conflagration was threatening to spread to the neighbouring street. The Record Office was, however, still uninjured at that time.
A further bombardment had just begun with a view to enforcing the submission of the insurgents who were still holding out. The "Irish Republic," the organ of Erskine Childers, has issued a broadsheet stating that Mr. de Valera is actively serving with the insurgents outside the Four Courts who are creating disorder and fighting in the City.
The latest news I have is not sufficiently definite to enable me to make any statement on it to the House, but it indicates that a great deal of cheering from the Provisional Government troops has just taken place and it is believed that it is connected with the immediate situation at the Four Courts. My information on this point was only received a few
minutes ago. I cannot pretend to add to the information that I have given.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: Do those cheers indicate a victory?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They indicate that some development has taken place at the Four Courts of a favourable character.
A small party of British soldiers from the Border Regiment went to the bank to get some money, protected by an armoured car. Fire was opened upon them by the insurgents, and two men have been wounded. Of course, British troops are being confined to their quarters, and only go out on most necessary business, and their orders have been, for some time, if fired upon to fire back at once. They will only do so in case of their being attacked.
The House will also see announcements of fighting in Donegal between the Free State Forces and the local insurgents, which appears to have ended, in all cases, very satisfactorily to the Free State Forces, resulting in most cases in the capture of insurgents.
If this report be true, it is very satisfactory, because perfectly irresponsible ruffians and bandits have been reducing Donegal to a state of veritable anarchy during the last few weeks, thereby complicating and endangering the peaceful relations that should prevail between that part of the country and the Six Counties area which is immediately in contact with it.
A Proclamation was issued by the Provisional Government, in answer to the proclamation calling for a general rising which was issued by the insurgents. Perhaps, as it has not yet appeared in the newspapers, the House would like me to read it, because it shows the position that the Free State Government take up at this moment:
For forty-eight hours the soldiers of your army have unflinchingly borne the brunt of battle against the forces of anarchy in your capital. Some of them have given their lives, and many others have been wounded in the defence of your rights as citizens. You are faced with a. conspiracy whose calculated end is to destroy the Treaty signed by your representatives and endorsed by yourselves. Under that Treaty the Government and control of your own country and its resources have been surrendered back to you after centuries of usurpation. You are
asked to reject this surrender and to engage in a hopeless and unnecessary war with Great Britain. The people in the Four Courts say they are fighting for a Republic. In reality they are fighting to bring the British back. Remember, we ask no man or woman to yield up any ideal or principle. Liberty will be secured to all, under Constitutional guarantees, but it will he Constitutional liberty, and no man shall be permitted to do violence to the views of his neighbours or to the will of the majority, least of all will the profession of ideals or principles be permitted as an excuse for undermining the people's rights, the security of the person, the security of property, and freedom to live their own lives in their own way as long as they do not trespass upon the rights of others.
Fellow citizens! This is what your Government stands for, this is what your soldiers are fighting for. In this programme we do not hesitate to turn to you for support in any call which we may be compelled to make on you. Dishonest appeals to your emotion, founded, in many cases, upon deliberate falsehoods, are being circulated amongst you. Your proven steadiness and good sense will discard these appeals and discountenance these falsehoods.
I have no further information to give.

Mr. RONALD MCNEILL: There are one or two points in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman which he will perhaps make a little clearer. I understand from the Press that all telegraphic communication with Ireland is interrupted except by Belfast.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. The direct wire was interrupted for several hours yesterday, but it is now working.

Mr. MCNEILL: Some of us feel a great deal of anxiety about the structure of the Four Courts. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent it has been destroyed? The Press announces that it has been blown up. The right hon. Gentleman has so far confirmed that as to say that some part, at least, has been destroyed by a mine sprung by the garrison. He has told us that the Record Office, so far as he knows, has not been destroyed. Can he give any information with regard to the magnificent Library of the Four Courts, which is one of the most magnificent libraries in the United Kingdom, the loss of which would be an infinite loss to any country that possessed it? If we could have some idea that it had not been totally destroyed, it would be a very great comfort to most Irishmen. I would also like to know to what extent the architectural features of the building have been damaged. If a breach were effected in the
building at the side, it would not necessarily permanently injure the architectural features, but if the front of the building were seriously damaged it would be a matter of very great loss.
There is another matter of considerable importance. One gathers from the accounts in the Press that there has been considerable activity shown by a different body from either the Free Staters or the Republicans—that is, by the Independent Workers of the World. They seem to have organised themselves, and presumably would be in opposition to both the other parties, and their activity is a very dangerous one, because if they prevailed the organisation which they would set up would probably be in the nature of a Soviet Government. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what he can on these points, as we shall not have an opportunity again until Monday of hearing anything in the nature of an official statement.

Mr. HOGGE: Does the right hon. Gentleman know if there has been any response outside Dublin to the appeal of the Republicans to the country to rise?

Sir J. BUTCHER: I would be glad if my right hon. Friend could give some information as to the documents in the Four Courts. There is a large number of documents there—and I believe only there, because there are no copies—which are essential to the administration of the large trust funds which are being administered by the Court of Chancery in Ireland. Would those documents be in the Record Office, or in some other part of the building? Any official of the Four Courts who knows the practice would be able to give an answer about that. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give information now, would he find out between now and Monday where those current documents for the administration of justice are kept?

Mr. R. MCNEILL: And the Land Registry?

Sir J. BUTCHER: This affects an enormous number of people in Ireland in their interests and pockets. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us in reference to the Soviet army, which is dominated by the Transport Workers' Union, whether that army is acting in concert with Rory
O'Connor and his rebels, or de Valera and his rebels, or whether it is conducting a campaign of mischief and of murder on its own account? My last question is what precautions are being taken to guard the Bank of Ireland? We all know what an important part the Bank of Ireland plays as regards Treasury documents and books, because in the books there are recorded the lists of stockholders in all British and Colonial securities, and there is also an infinity of documents and valuables. I do not know whether our troops or those of the Free State are guarding the Bank.

Mr. LINDSAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the documents referring to Northern Ireland, which were originally at the Four Courts, have been transferred to Belfast, and will he ascertain whether it is safe or possible to send mails to Northern Ireland via Dublin?

Colonel CLAUDE LOWTHER: Has that arch-scoundrel Rory O'Connor been captured?

Mr. REMER: The right hon. Gentleman told us that certain persons had been captured. Have the Provisional Government made any communication as to their policy? Are the captured men to be tried?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Many questions have been asked. This is the business of the Provisional Government, and it is not our business in the first instance at all, though we cannot help watching with keenness and sympathy what is taking place in Ireland now. There is no doubt that it will play a great part in the future history of that country and its relations with the British Empire. As far as disorder in other parts of the country is concerned, my information is that there have been several other centres of disturbance, but that the Free State troops have, in most cases, obtained control of the situation very early in the day. This is particularly so in the case of Drogheda.
As far as the Independent Workers of of the World are concerned, I have the same information as has appeared in the Press, but it is confirmed from official sources that they have occupied certain points. It would be incorrect to describe them as an army. They are just that jackal rabble which is in every situation of revolution and disturbance. It
creeps forward to prey upon society and upon the combatants on both sides. I cannot believe that if the dangers with which the Provisional Government are now grappling are successfully overcome, the task of reducing these people to proper subjection will be a difficult one.

Mr. LAWSON: May I interrupt? A very serious misstatement was made on this matter. An hon. Member confused the Independent Workers of the World with the Irish Transport Workers. The Independent Workers of the World are an entirely negligible party, which has nothing whatever to do with any constitutional organisation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the Labour party in Ireland have taken no part whatever in these lamentable proceedings. As far as the records are concerned, I have been asked questions which are manifestly absurd. How can I know? The explosion took place at one o'clock. It seems almost to be supposed that I have made a catalogue of the documents saved and those which had been lost. This I do know, that every effort was made by the Provisional Government to safeguard the records, and to avoid more damage than was absolutely necessary to this historic and beautiful structure of the Four Courts.
When men are fighting, and fighting about matters so important as the foundations of their country, buildings and records will often suffer. Damage, lamentable and almost measureless, and hardly less inconvenience will follow from a general destruction of these
valuable documents, but I do not think this inconvenience would be so great as or at all comparable, in any way, to the sufferings which would come upon Ireland if general anarchy were to prevail.

Mr. R. MCNEILL: We are only asking for the facts.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have no further information on that at the present. I will only say this—that a State without archives is better than archives without a State.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain my question about the records? I did not expect him to tell me what had become of them. What I am asking is, that the right hon. Gentleman should, before Monday, find out whether these archives and documents are in the Record Office, and if they are cafe or not.

Mr. CHURCHILL: By Monday By to-morrow the country will know exactly what has been destroyed and what has not, in the way of buildings.
Information has come in since I began to speak. The building is burning; there is not much hope of saving it; 30 or 40 more of the Provisional Government troops have become casualties and there are strong rumours that the Irregulars have asked for terms of surrender and have been told that surrender must be unconditional.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after Four o'Clock till Monday (3rd July).